THE  UNIVERSITY 


OF  ILLINOIS 


v  •* 


LIBRARY 

fd/5-1 
J  5  do 


. 


f 


■ 

1 


CARNEGIE  INSTITUTION  OF  WAS  HINGTON 

Publication  No.  388 


DEC  3 


nr  T[|g 

1928 


folNOIS 


1928 


' 


. 


' 


Arch/eological  Investigations 

in  Kamchatka 


BY 

WALDEMAR  JOCHELSON 


THE  LIBR/lf 


wwmr  of  the 


DEC  3 


LMVERSlll'  fa  jLj_jWQ{(> 


Published  by  the  Carnegie  Institution  of  Washington 
Washington,  August  1928 


PRESS  OF  GIBSON  BROS.,  INC. 
WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 


CONTENTS 


< 

V 

X 

H 

P) 

rl 


Preface. 


Chapter  I. 

History . 

The  Bering  expeditions . 

Bering’s  first  expedition. . . 
Bering’s  second  expedition 
Spanberg’s  voyage . 


PAGE 

VII 


1 


Chapter  II. 

Japanese  shipwrecks  near  Kamchatka  shore. . 

The  uprising  of  the  Kamchadal . 

The  causes  of  revolts . 

Some  mental  traits  of  the  old  Kamchadal 
The  yassak  or  fur  tribute . 


zr 


Chapter  III. 

The  country  and  somatology  of  the  Kamchadal 

Geological  past  of  Kamchatka . 

Geography  and  administrative  divisions . 

Climate  of  Kamchatka . 

Somatology . 

Sanitary  conditions  among  the  Kamchadal . 


Chapter  IV. 

The  stone  age  in  Siberia  and  adjacent  countries . 

The  Siberian  palseolith . 

Palaeolithic  remains  in  Inner  Mongolia . 

The  Siberian  neolith . 

Some  characteristics  of  the  Siberian  neolith . 

Stone  industry . 

Ceramics . 

Bone  industry . 

Dwellings  of  the  neolithic  period  in  Siberia . 

•  Skeletal  remains  of  neolithic  man  in  Siberia . 

Neolithic  sites  in  countries  adjacent  to  Siberia . 

The  Lake  Kosogol . 

The  Inner  Mongolia . 

The  Gobi  Desert . 

Eastern  Mongolia,  Manchuria,  Korea,  Japan  and  China 
A  warmer  climate  in  Siberia  during  the  neolithic  period . 


15 

15 

16 
18 

19 

20 


23 

23 

25 

25 

28 

29 

30 

31 
31 

31 

32 

32 

33 

33 

34 

35 


Chapter  V. 

Metals  in  the  prehistoric  Kamchatka . 

Metals  in  Siberia . 

Transition  from  the  neolithic  period  to  the  age  of  metals  in  Siberia . 

Direct  transition  of  the  neolithic  culture  in  the  iron  age  in  some  parts  of  Siberia 

III 


670892 


m  ^  to 


Chapter  VI. 


PAGE 


Archaeological  remains  from  the  Kamchatka  Excavations .  41 

Source  material  for  stone  implements .  41 

Localities  where  excavations  were  made .  41 

Chapter  VII. 

Stone  lamps .  67 

Chapter  VIII. 

Pottery .  69 

Methods  of  cooking  food  of  the  ancient  Kamchadal .  69 

Review  of  the  relation  of  the  Ainos  to  the  Kamchadal .  70 

Pottery  of  the  Ainos .  72 

Pots  or  pans  with  ears  inside  the  vessels .  73 

A  different  kind  of  pottery  to  the  north  of  Kamchatka .  76 

Bibliography .  79 

Index .  83 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


I.  Types  of  Kamchadal  men,  women  and  girls. 

II.  A.  Elders  of  villages  of  the  Western  Shore  of 
Kamchatka. 

B.  Group  of  blind  men  and  women  of  the  village 
Kharyusovo. 

III.  Kamchadal  boats  bridged. 

IV.  A.  Greek-Catholic  Chapel  in  the  village  Khar- 

y  usova. 

B.  Kamchadal  storehouse. 

V.  A.  Author’s  camp  on  Cape  Siwusk  in  Kuril 
Lake. 

B.  Ascending  the  rapids  of  Osernaya  River. 

C.  Pulling  the  boats  through  the  Rapids. 

VI.  A.  Lance  and  arrow  heads  of  flint  and  quartzite. 

B.  Lance  and  arrow  heads  of  obsidian. 

VII.  1-17.  Stone  knives. 

18-29.  Stone  scrapers. 


Stone  blades  of  knives,  lances  and  arrows  and 
stone  scrapers. 

IX.  Stone  axes,  adzes  and  chisels. 

X.  Stone  fishing  hook  sinkers  and  a  pestle. 

XI.  Stone  implements  and  weapons. 

XII.  Bone  awls  and  parts  of  weapons. 

XIII.  A.  Bone  implements. 

B.  Fragments  of  bone  implements. 

XIV.  Stone  lamps. 

XV.  Stone  lamps. 

XVI.  Bone  belt  buckles,  combs  and  implements. 

XVII.  Kamchadal  pottery. 

XVIII.  Fragments  of  Kamchadal  pottery. 

XIX.  Fragments  of  pottery  of  northern  Kamchatka. 

Map  showing  distribution  of  Palaeolithic,  Neolithic, 
Bronze  and  Iron  Stations  of  Siberia,  folded. 


PLATES 

VIII. 


TEXT-FIGURES 


PAGE 


1.  Kamchatka  Peninsula .  14 

2.  Map  of  Avacha  Bay .  42 

3.  A  laurel  leaf-like  blade  of  dark  grayish  flint. . . .  44 

4.  Pit  No.  1,  Nalacheva  Lake .  44 

5.  Pit  No.  2,  Nalacheva  Lake .  45 

6.  Arrow  blade  of  green  jasper,  Nalacheva  Lake...  44 

7.  Arrow  flint  blade,  Nalacheva  Lake .  44 

8.  Pit  No.  3,  Nalacheva  Lake .  46 

9.  Blade  of  black  obsidian,  Nalacheva  Lake .  44 

10.  Stone  pestle  of  quartz  slate,  Nalacheva  Lake. . .  44 

11.  Pit  No.  4,  Nalacheva  Lake .  46 

12.  Pit  No.  1,  Nalacheva  Cape .  47 

13.  Pit  No.  2,  Nalacheva  Cape .  47 

14.  Pit  No.  3,  Nalacheva  Cape .  47 

15.  Pit  No.  4,  Nalacheva  Cape .  47 

16.  Pit  No.  5,  Nalacheva  Cape .  47 

17.  Pit  No.  6,  Nalacheva  Cape .  48 

18.  Chisel  of  quartz  schist .  49 

19.  Flint  blade .  49 

20.  Sketch  of  Nalacheva  Lake  and  Cape .  48 


PAGE 


21.  Sketch  of  ancient  site  of  Kulki  River .  48 

22.  Lance  point  of  flint .  49 

23.  Sketch  of  ancient  site  of  Kavran  River .  48 

24.  Stone  implement  of  black  flint .  50 

25.  Flint  nucleus .  50 

26.  Flint  nucleus .  50 

27.  Flint  scraper .  52 

28.  Stone  pestle  of  quartz  slate .  52 

29.  Flint  arrow-point .  52 

30.  Flint  blade .  52 

31.  Bone  arch  of  ancient  Kamchadal  dog-sledge.. . .  52 

32.  Stone  implement  of  silicified  black  slate .  52 

33.  Lance  point  of  flint .  52 

34.  Whetstone  for  polishing  stone  implements .  52 

35.  Small  arrow  blade  of  flint .  52 

36.  Obsidian  blade .  54 

37.  Obsidian  scraper .  54 

38.  Woman’s  tailoring  knife  of  slate . '.  54 

39.  Drill  head  of  quartzite .  54 

40.  Stone  for  grinding  paints .  54 


IV 


41.  Bone  knife  for  splitting  willow-herb . 

42.  Bone  shovel  for  digging . 

43.  Bone  hook . 

44.  Bone  shovel  for  digging . 

45.  Obsidian  scraper . 

46.  Stone  pestle  for  grinding  food . 

47.  Obsidian  blade . 

48.  Stone  hammer . 

49.  Quartz  pebble  used  in  game  called  matka . 

50.  Bone  hook  for  hanging  fish  for  drying . 

51.  Fragment  of  a  bone  implement . 

52.  Bone  hook  of  reindeer  antler . 

53.  Scraper-like  implement  of  quartzite . 

54.  Pit  of  an  ancient  dwelling  on  the  Osernaya 

River . 

55.  Small  flint  arrow  blade . 

56.  Stone  implement  of  silicified  slate . 

57.  Stone  implement,  not  finished,  of  silicified  slate. 

'  58.  Flint  scraper . 

59.  Adze  of  quartz  schist . 

60.  Scraper  of  silicified  slate . 

61.  Arrow  blade  of  white  chalcedony . 

62.  Scraper-like  implement  of  silicified  slate . 

63.  Map  of  the  Kuril  Lake . 

64.  Stone  lamp  of  sandstone . 

65.  Stone  lamp  of  porphyrite . 

66.  Stone  lamp  of  andesitic  lava,  in  process  of 

manufacture . 

67.  Stone  lamp  on  a  wooden  stand,  of  the  present 

Kamchadal . 


PAGE 


68.  Stone  lamp  under  a  birch  bark  funnel,  of  the 

present  Kamchadal .  68 

69.  Bone  comb  of  the  Kurilian  Ainos  decorated 

with  interwoven  curves.  Some  of  the  teeth 
are  broken .  71 

70.  Bone  comb  of  the  Kurilians  which  might  serve 

as  an  implement  for  decorating  pottery .  71 

71.  Fragment  of  a  Kurilian  bone  comb,  not  orna¬ 

mented,  has  a  hole  in  the  upper  part,  probably 
for  suspending  it  by  a  cord .  71 

72.  Fragment  of  a  Kurilian  bone  belt  buckle,  orna¬ 

mented  with  interwoven  curves .  71 

73.  Small  belt  buckle  of  the  Kurilians,  with  a  hole  in 

the  center .  71 

74.  Bone  case  for  fishing  hooks  of  the  Kurilians _  71 

75.  Fragment  of  Kurilian  pottery  with  an  inside  ear .  74 

76.  Another  fragment  of  Kurilian  pottery  with  an 

inside  ear .  74 

77.  Fragment  of  the  lower  part  and  bottom  of  a 

Kurilian  clay  vessel .  74 

78.  Fragment  of  a  Kurilian  clay  vessel  with  a 

drilled  hole  for  mending .  74 

79.  Outline  of  a  Kurilian  clay  pot  with  ears  inside . .  74 

80.  Fragment  of  ancient  Aino  pottery  with  an  ear 

inside,  from  Yezo .  74 

81.  Ancient  Aino  clay  vessel  with  ears  inside,  from 

Yezo .  74 

82.  Sketch  of  an  iron  pot  with  ears  inside,  of  the 

Sakhalin  Ainos .  75 

83.  Iron  pot  with  ears  inside,  of  the  Yezo  Ainos —  75 


PAGE 

54 

54 

54 

54 

54 

54 

54 

54 

54 

55 

55 

55 

55 

56 

55 

55 

55 

55 

55 

62 

62 

62 

58 

67 

67 

67 

68 


V 


# 


PREFACE 


In  1925  the  Carnegie  Institution  of  Washington  published  my  report,  Archaeolog¬ 
ical  Investigations  in  the  Aleutian  Islands.  The  present  work  deals  with  the 
archaeological  investigations  in  Kamchatka,  based  on  fieldwork  conducted  by  the 
author  in  1910-1911  at  the  expense  of  the  late  F.  P.  Riaboushinsky,  Moscow  banker, 
and  under  the  auspices  of  the  Imperial  Russian  Geographical  Society.  Both 
works  form  a  part  of  the  results  of  the  author’s  studies  as  a  leader  of  the  Ethnologi¬ 
cal  Division  of  the  so-called  Kamchatka  Expedition,  and  may  be  regarded  as 
publications,  in  English,  of  the  Russian  expedition.  The  reasons  for  the  study  of 
the  Aleutian  Islands  by  the  Ethnological  Division  of  the  Kamchatka  Expedition 
are  given  in  my  work  Archaeological  Investigations  in  the  Aleutian  Islands  (page  2). 

The  leaders  and  members  of  the  other  divisions  of  the  expedition,  who  worked 
in  Kamchatka  only,  are  still  working  out  their  material.  The  following  publica¬ 
tions  have  appeared  in  Russian.  Professor  P.  J.  Schmidt,  member  of  the  Russian 
Academy  of  Sciences  and  leader  of  the  Zoological  Division,  published  the  first 
volume  of  The  Zoology  of  Kamchatka,  Moscow,  1916  (1-432  pages,  4°).  Professor 
Y.  L.  Komarov,  member  of  the  Russian  Academy  of  Sciences  and  leader  of  the 
Botanical  Division,  published  the  first  volume  of  The  Vegetation  of  Kamchatka, 
Moscow,  1912  (1-458  pages,  4°).  Dr.  V.  A.  Vlasov,  the  chief  of  the  Meteorolog¬ 
ical  Bureau  of  Moscow  and  leader  of  the  Meteorological  Division,  published 
Volume  I,  Part  1,  The  Climate  of  Kamchatka;  Part  2,  Kamchatka’s  Waters,  Moscow, 
1916  (I-VII,  1-370  pages,  4°). 

The  above  Russian  publications  of  the  Kamchatka  Expedition  were  not 
written  by  the  division  leaders  alone,  but  there  are  also  contributions  by  their 
assistants,  fifteen  in  number,  specialists  in  different  branches  of  zoology,  botany, 
geology  and  meteorology. 

The  leader  of  the  Geological  Division,  the  mining  engineer  and  member  of 
the  Geological  Survey  of  Petrograd,  S.  A.  Konradi,  has  published  only  a  brief 
account  of  his  investigations  of  the  Kamchatka  volcanoes.  After  the  revolution 
of  October  1917  in  Russia  he  proceeded  to  Prague,  Czechoslovakia,  where  he  now 
lives. 

The  following  material  of  the  writer  has  not  yet  been  published :  grammars  on 
the  Aleutian  and  Kamchadal  languages,  and  material  on  the  folklore,  history, 
anthropology,  ethnology  and  sociology  of  the  Aleut  and  Kamchadal.  A  hand¬ 
book  by  the  writer  on  the  anthropology  and  ethnology  of  the  peoples  of  Asiatic 
Russia  and  adjacent  countries  is  now  in  print  by  the  American  Museum  of  Natural 
History  in  New  York,  and  a  volume  on  the  Yakut  people  of  Siberia  (prehistory, 


VII 


VIII 


Preface 


history,  anthropology,  language,  folklore,  ethnology  and  sociology)  is  now  in  pre¬ 
paration  for  the  publications  of  the  American  Museum. 

The  specimens  described  in  this  book  are  on  exhibition  in  the  Central  Museum 
for  Ethnography  (former  Count  Rumiantzev’s  Museum)  in  Moscow. 

Acknowledgment  is  made  to  Professor  B.  M.  Sokolov,  the  Director  of  the 
Central  Museum  for  Ethnography  in  Moscow,  and  his  assistant,  Dr.  B.  S.  Shukov, 
who  supervised  the  work  of  illustrations;  to  the  mineralogist,  Professor  A.  G. 
Titov  of  the  Moscow  University,  who  determined  the  stone  material  for  implements 
and  weapons;  to  the  scientific  collaborator  of  the  Central  Museum,  Madame  E.  I. 
Goryunova,  and  the  artist,  Mr.  Gutentag,  who  made  drawings  from  specimens  of 
the  Kamchatka  collection;  to  the  photographer  of  the  Central  Museum,  Mr.  P.  N. 
Bashirov,  for  the  photographs  taken  of  specimens  in  the  Central  Museum. 

Mr.  N.  N.  Krijanovsky  of  the  staff  of  the  American  Geographical  Society  in 
New  York  made  drawings  of  the  map  showing  the  distribution  of  the  palaeolithic, 
neolithic,  bronze  and  iron  stations  in  Northern  Asia  and  the  map  of  Kamchatka 
Peninsula. 

Mrs.  Jochelson,  as  a  member  of  the  Ethnological  Division  of  the  Kamchatka 
Expedition,  assisted  me  in  excavating  ancient  Kamchadal  village  sites  and  in 
taking  photographs  during  our  fieldwork.  As  a  Doctor  of  Medicine  she  made 
herself  useful  by  treating  the  numerous  Kamchadal  patients. 

Finally  the  author  is  under  obligation  to  the  American  Museum  of  Natural 
History  in  New  York  for  assistance  in  clerical  work  and  for  putting  at  his  disposal 
office  room  while  writing  this  report. 

Waldemar  Jochelson. 

American  Museum  of  Natural  History, 

New  York,  March  27,  1928. 


Arch/eological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


CHAPTER  I 

HISTORY 

In  1632  the  Russian  conquerors  of  Siberia  settled  on  the  Lena  River  and 
built  a  fortified  town,  Yakutsk,  which  they  used  as  a  central  base  for  further 
military  expeditions.  In  the  course  of  these  expeditions  they  reached  Okhotsk 
and  Bering  Seas  on  the  east,  the  Arctic  Ocean  on  the  north  and  the  Amur  River 
on  the  south. 

In  the  year  1649  the  fortress  Anadyrsk,  on  the  river  of  the  same  name,  was 
founded  by  the  Cossack  Deshnev,  who  had  traveled  in  boats  from  the  mouth  of 
the  Kolyma  River  through  Bering  Strait  to  the  mouth  of  the  Anadyr  River. 

Since  the  founding  of  the  fortress  Anadyrsk,  Cossack  parties  have  imposed 
tribute  on  the  Koryak  living  to  the  south  of  Anadyr.  From  the  Koryak  the 
Cossacks  learned  that  the  best  peltries,  such  as  sables,  sea  otters  ( Enhydris  marina), 
and  sea  bears  ( Otaria  ursina)  were  obtained  by  the  Koryak  themselves  through 
exchange  from  Kamchatka.  This  discovery  led  to  an  expedition  to  the  Kamchatka 
Peninsula. 

In  1696,  Atlassov,  commandant  of  the  fortress  Anadyrsk,  sent  a  detachment 
under  the  command  of  the  Cossack  Morozko  to  the  peninsula  of  Kamchatka  to 
verify  the  reports  of  its  wealth  in  peltries.  The  following  year,  Atlassov  under¬ 
took  the  journey  himself.  He  sent  Morozko  with  his  detachment  to  the  Bering 
Sea,  while  he  advanced  along  the  coast  of  the  Penshina  Bay,  gathering  tribute 
from  the  crossing  country.  Morozko  did  likewise  on  the  coast  of  Bering  Sea. 
Atlassov  and  Morozko  met  on  the  Tighil  River  where  the  Kamchadal  territory 
begins.  They  advanced  together,  reached  the  Kamchatka  River,  received  tribute 
from  the  Kamchadal  who  were  living  in  the  valley  of  the  Kamchatka  River,  and 
founded  the  fortress  Verkhne-Kamchatsk. 

Thus  the  conquest  of  Kamchatka  was  begun.  When  the  Russians  had  settled 
in  Kamchatka,  the  Peninsula,  as  well  as  the  Koryak  territory  to  the  north  of  it, 
became  dependent  upon  the  fortress  Anadyrsk.  The  sea  route  from  Okhotsk  to 
Kamchatka  was  at  that  time  unknown,  and  the  land  journey  through  the  terri¬ 
tory  of  the  turbulent  Koryak  was  considered  quite  impossible.  In  those  days 
Kamchatka  was  the  most  valuable  acquisition  of  the  Russian  Government  in  the 
Far  East,  and  communications  of  the  Yakutsk  Administration  with  Kamchatka 


1 


2 


Archeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


had  to  be  maintained  over  a  long  and  dangerous  route.  The  way  from  Kamchatka 
to  Yakutsk  lay  through  the  entire  Koryak  country  to  the  Anadyr  River;  from 
there  to  the  Kolyma  River  over  the  Stanovoi  Mountain;  and  from  there  the  route 
lay  over  the  Indighirka  and  the  Yana  countries  and  the  Verkhoyansk  range  of 
mountains.  A  great  number  of  the  Cossack  parties,  which  started  from  Kam¬ 
chatka  with  tributes  of  furs,  never  reached  the  fortress  Anadyrsk.  The  Koryak 
killed  the  Cossacks  from  ambush  and  kept  the  furs.  Transports,  that  had  safely 
reached  Anadyrsk,  would  arrive  in  Yakutsk  three  years  after  they  had  left  Kam¬ 
chatka.  Cossack  detachments  carrying  provisions,  gunpowder,  arms  and  cannons 
from  Yakutsk  to  Kamchatka  were  also  harassed  by  Koryak  attacks.  To  put  an 
end  to  such  conditions  a  direct  sea-route  from  Okhotsk  to  Kamchatka  had  to  be 
discovered,  and  the  Koryak  had  to  be  finally  subdued  in  order  that  the  winter 
route  might  be  rendered  safe. 

Until  the  sea-route  from  Okhotsk  was  discovered,  the  Cossacks  of  the  Kam¬ 
chatka  Peninsula  tried  to  utilize  the  Pacific  Ocean  route  to  shorten  the  dangerous 
land  trip  from  Kamchatka  to  Anadyrsk.  They  built  large  boats  of  boards,  and 
starting  from  the  mouth  of  the  Kamchatka  River  traveled  northward  to  the  mouth 
of  the  Alutor  River.  In  1752,  in  order  to  facilitate  these  expeditions,  the  Cossacks 
built  a  settlement,  Alutorsk,  protected  by  a  wall,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Alutor  River, 
where  Cossack  parties  could  find  shelter  against  the  attacks  of  the  Alutor  Koryak. 
During  the  winter,  Cossacks  traversed  the  tundra  from  the  fortified  settlement, 
Alutorsk,  to  the  mouth  of  the  Oklan  River,  a  tributary  of  the  Penshina  River,  on 
which  a  fortress,  Oklansk,  was  built.  From  Oklansk  they  traveled  northward  along 
the  valley  of  the  Penshina  River  and,  having  traversed  the  Nalghinsk  Mountains, 
arrived  at  the  Anadyr  River.  That  part  of  the  way  from  Kamchatka  to  the  Anadyr 
which  lay  between  Alutorsk  and  Oklansk  was  of  course  not  safe  from  unexpected 
attacks  of  the  Koryak. 

The  unsuccessful  attempt  of  1712  to  reach  Kamchatka  by  sea  from  Okhotsk 
was  followed  in  1713  by  a  special  ukase  of  Peter  I,  ordering  that  a  sea-route  to 
Kamchatka  be  found.  All  attempts,  however,  failed  until  1716,  when  a  success¬ 
ful  journey  was  made  from  Okhotsk  to  Tighil  in  a  large  boat.  Thus  the  depend¬ 
ence  of  Kamchatka  on  the  Anadyr  route  was  brought  to  a  close,  and  communication 
between  the  peninsula  and  Yakutsk  was  henceforth  carried  on  directly  by  way  of 
Okhotsk. 

THE  BERING  EXPEDITIONS 

The  discovery  of  a  sea-route  to  Kamchatka  gave  an  impetus  to  geographical 
explorations  in  Bering  Sea.  In  1726  the  first  expedition  of  Bering  was  undertaken, 
followed  by  a  second  in  1737-45.  In  the  interval  between  these  expeditions, 
which  were  scientific  in  character  and  had  no  direct  relation  to  the  administration 
of  Kamchatka,  the  Kamchadal  were  finally  subdued. 

Professor  Golder1  is  of  the  opinion  that  Peter  I,  on  his  own  initiative,  set  on 
foot  Bering’s  Expedition  in  order  to  determine  whether  Asia  is  united  with  or 


1  F.  A.  Golder,  Rzissian  Expansion  on  the  Pacific,  1641-1850,  Cleveland,  1914,  p.  133. 


History 


3 


separated  from  America,  but  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  he  was  influenced  by 
the  German  philosopher,  Leibnitz.  The  Russian  historian,  Vladimir  Guerye,1 
found  in  the  library  of  Hanover  among  Leibnitz’s  rough  records  a  draft  of  a 
note,  written  in  1697,  which  evidently  was  destined  for  the  Russian  Czar.  Among 
many  other  advices  the  note  contains  a  recommendation  to  investigate  North¬ 
eastern  Asia  in  order  to  determine  the  connections  between  Asia  and  America. 
At  that  time  a  Russian  embassy  was  passing  through  Hanover  possessions  and, 
as  Professor  Guerye  suggested,  Leibnitz’s  note  might  have  reached  the  Czar  through 
Mr.  Leford,  the  Swiss  adventurer  and  councilor  of  Peter  the  Great.  The  original 
of  this  note  was,  however,  not  discovered  in  the  Russian  archives.  But  there 
exist  other  traces  of  connections  or  direct  correspondence  between  Leibnitz  and 
the  Czar.  In  a  letter  to  Bruss  in  1711  Leibnitz  says: 

“No  one  except  the  Czar  can  solve  to  the  universe  this  doubt,  and  this  may  be  regarded  as  a 
more  glorious  and  important  task  than  that  which  has  been  done  by  the  Egyptian  rulers  in  their 
time,  relating  to  the  investigation  of  the  sources  of  the  Nile.” 

In  September  1712,  Leibnitz  sent  to  Bruss  a  note  on  the  desirability  of  lin¬ 
guistic  investigations  and  magnetic  observations  in  Russia.  At  the  conclusion 
he  again  touches  the  idea  cherished  by  him,  of  the  connection  between  the  two 
continents,2  accompanying  it  with  considerations  of  great  interest. 

In  a  letter  of  October  26,  1713,  to  the  Czar,  writing  from  Vienna,  Leibnitz 
again  reminded  him  of  the  same  plan.  In  1716,  Leibnitz  and  Peter  the  Great 
together  passed  about  a  week  at  the  watering  place  of  Pirmont  (Braunsweig)  and 
there  is  no  doubt  that  they  frequently  spoke  on  this  subject.  Leibnitz  wrote  to 
Burge  the  following  lines: 

“The  Czar  is  inquiring  about  all  mechanical  arts;  but  his  main  interest  is  concentrated  on 
everything  connected  with  navigation,  and  therefore  he  is  fond  of  astronomy  and  geography.  I 
hope  that  through  him  we  shall  be  able  to  learn  whether  Asia  and  America  are  joined.” 

On  June  22  of  the  same  year  he  laid  before  the  Czar  in  Pirmont,  through 
Shaphiroff,3  a  memorandum  in  which  he  demonstrated,  by  points,  what  the  Czar 
could  do  with  glory  in  advancing  civilization  and  science,  and  to  clear  up  the 
question  on  the  connections  of  Asia  and  America.  Leibnitz  repeats  the  same 
idea  in  another  memorandum  to  the  Czar,  who  also  was  evidently  then  in  Pir¬ 
mont.  Thus  the  thoughts  on  the  connection  of  Asia  and  America  importunately 
occupied  the  mind  of  Leibnitz  during  twenty  years,  and  he  was  constantly  urging 
the  Czar  to  solve  this  problem.  Unfortunately  wars,  inner  troubles  and  other 
affairs  of  state  prevented  the  Czar  from  fulfilling  Leibnitz’s  recommendation 
earlier,  and  it  was  only  at  the  end  of  his  life  that  he  resolved  to  organize  an  expedi¬ 
tion  to  solve  the  problem  in  which  Leibnitz  was  so  much  interested. 

1  See  Vladimir  Guerye,  On  the  Relations  of  Leibnitz  to  Peter  the  Great,  according  to  the  unpublished  records  of 
Leibnitz  in  the  library  at  Hanover  S.  Pet.  1871,  pp.  14,  18  (a  separate  of  the  Journal  of  the  Department  of  Education); 
Collection  of  Letters  and  Notes  of  Leibnitz  concerning  Russia  and  Peter  the  Great,  St.  Pet.  1873,  p.  19;  published  by_  the 
Imperial  Russian  Academy  of  Sciences.  See  also  Professor  L.  S.  Berg,  The  Discovery  of  Kamchatka  and  Kamchatka  Expedi¬ 
tions  of  Bering,  Leningrad  and  Moscow,  1924,  p.  61  (all  in  Russian). 

2  i.  e.,  whether  Asia  is  separated  from  America. 

3  Baron  Shaphiroff  was  the  vice-chancellor  of  Peter  the  Great. 


4 


Archaeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


A  brief  exposition  of  data  relating  to  the  personnel,  routes  and  results  of  the 
Bering  Expeditions  follow,  as  they  are  closely  connected  with  the  history  of 
Kamchatka  and  the  fate  of  the  Kamchadal. 

BERING'S  FIRST  EXPEDITION 

At  the  end  of  1724  Peter  I  drew  up  the  instructions  for  the  Expedition,  but 
he  did  not  sign  them  until  January  26,  1725.  About  a  month  after  signing  them 
the  Czar  died,  but  his  plans  were  carried  out  by  the  Empress  Catherine  I.  Before 
his  death  the  Czar  chose  Bering  to  carry  out  the  projected  work. 

Vitus  (in  Russian  called  Ivan  Ivanovich)  Bering  was  born  in  Denmark  in 
1680.  He  had  been  in  the  Russian  service  since  1704,  and  was  an  experienced 
and  excellent  seaman,  an  honest  man  and  friendly  to  his  subordinates,  but  too 
cautious  and  indecisive  to  conduct  such  a  responsible  enterprise  as  the  Kamchatka 
Expedition.  In  addition  to  this  he  showed  little  interest  in  purely  scientific 
problems.  Nevertheless  his  expeditions  accomplished  a  scientific  task  of  utmost 
importance,  and  he  met  a  heroic  death  on  the  island  which  now  bears  his  name. 
Lieutenants  Chirikov  and  Spanberg  were  given  to  him  as  assistants.  Alexei 
Chirikov  was  one  of  the  best  Russian  seamen  of  that  time — bright,  educated, 
modest  and  firm.  Martin  Spanberg,  a  Dane,  was  an  excellent  seaman,  but  rough 
and  harsh  and  disliked  by  his  subordinates. 

Their  route  from  Petrograd  lay  through  Siberia  to  Okhotsk  and  from  there 
to  Kamchatka  by  water.  I  refrain  from  a  description  of  the  hardships,  sufferings 
and  losses  to  which  the  members  of  the  expedition,  and  still  more  the  aborigines 
of  Siberia,  were  subjected.  Only  the  results  of  the  first  Bering  expedition  may  be 
mentioned  here.  When  on  August  13  the  expedition  reached  the  Bering  Sea, 
latitude  65°  30'  north,  Bering  summoned  his  officers  to  consult  as  to  what  should 
be  done.  The  officers  were  divided  in  opinion.  Spanberg  proposed  to  continue 
their  course  to  the  north  until  August  16  and  then  turn  about.  The  opinion  of 
Chirikov  was  that  the  expedition  should  sail  to  the  west  until  the  mouth  of  the 
Kolyma  River  was  reached.  Bering  accepted  the  advice  of  Spanberg,  and  until 
the  sixteenth  the  same  northerly  course  was  held.  When  in  latitude  67°  18', 
longitude  193°  7'  east  from  Greenwich  the  order  was  given  to  put  about  and  set 
course  for  Kamchatka.  March  1,  1730,  Bering  reached  St.  Petersburg  after  a 
five-years’  absence.  Bering  himself  was  convinced  that  he  had  done  his  duty, 
but  leading  authorities  in  the  capital  did  not  hesitate  to  state  that  the  two  conti¬ 
nents  might  be  united  somewhere  to  the  west  of  the  point  reached  by  Bering’s 
expedition. 

BERING’S  SECOND  EXPEDITION 

The  critical  attitude  of  scientists  toward  the  results  of  the  first  expedition, 
and  also  the  recognition  by  Bering  himself  that  his  first  journey  did  not  amply 
solve  the  problem  assigned  to  him,  led  him  to  suggest  another  voyage.  He  sug¬ 
gested  also,  in  a  general  way,  to  map  the  northern  coast  of  Siberia. 

Bering’s  propositions  were  favorably  received  and  adopted  after  certain  changes 
had  been  suggested  by  Chirikov.  Bering’s  plan  to  survey  northern  Siberia  was 


History 


5 


greatly  enlarged  so  as  to  cover  the  coast  from  Arkhangelsk  to  the  Lena  River  (in 
four  sections),  and  from  Lena  to  the  Anadyr  River,  a  fifth  section,1  in  order  to 
prove  beyond  a  doubt  whether  America  and  Asia  were  or  were  not  united. 

In  December  1732  the  Senate  gave  its  official  approval  to  the  work  under¬ 
taken.  On  February  28,  1733,  the  instructions  were  revised  and  put  in  final  shape 
by  the  Admiralty  College  and  confirmed  without  alteration  by  the  Senate  on 
March  16,  1733,  but  with  the  addition  of  some  other  points. 

Bering  was  appointed  the  leader  of  the  expedition,  Chirikov  his  first  and  Span- 
berg  his  second  assistants.  Spanberg  was  to  command  a  division  of  vessels  to 
sail  for  Japan. 

The  Russian  Academy  of  Sciences  appointed  the  following  scientists  to  join 
the  expedition:  the  naturalist,  Johann  Gmelin;  historian  and  geographer,  Herard 
Miller;  astronomer,  Louis  Delisle  de  la  Croyere2  with  two  assistants,  the  geodesists 
Andrei  Krasilnikoff  and  Simeon  Popoff.  Gmelin  and  Miller  were  afterward  re¬ 
placed  by  G.  W.  Steller  and  G.  E.  Fisher.  Among  other  scientific  assistants 
should  be  mentioned  the  name  of  S.  P.  Krasheninnikoff,  later  an  academician 
and  author  of  the  Description  of  Kamchatka.  None  of  the  scientists  mentioned, 
except  Steller  and  Delisle  de  la  Croyere,  who  were  members  of  the  second  Bering 
Expedition,  went  to  sea  with  him,  being  engaged  in  the  study  of  the  history, 
geography,  biology  and  ethnography  of  Siberia. 

It  was  not  until  May  1741  that  the  vessels  St.  Peter,  commanded  by  Bering 
himself,  and  the  St.  Paul,  commanded  by  Chirikov,  were  ready  to  leave  the  Avacha 
Bay,  Kamchatka.  Before  starting  Bering  summoned  his  officers,  including  the 
astronomer,  for  consultation.  All  were  of  the  opinion  that  by  sailing  between  east 
and  south  the  American  continent  would  first  be  reached,  visiting  en  route  the 
phantastic  Gama  Land.  When  America  was  located,  the  boats  were  to  follow 
the  coast  in  a  northerly  direction  until  they  were  between  the  parallels  64  and  66, 
the  location  of  the  most  northeasterly  point  of  Asia,  and  then  sail  due  west  and 
thus  determine  the  relation  between  Asia  and  America.  When  that  was  done  they 
should  return  to  Kamchatka.  But  this  plan  was  not  destined  to  be  carried  out. 
June  20,  1741,  between  the  forty-eight  and  forty-ninth  parallels,  the  two  boats 
were  separated  by  shifting  winds,  never  to  meet  again. 

On  June  23,  Chirikov  gave  up  looking  for  the  St.  Peter  and,  according  to  the 
general  agreement  of  the  officers,  the  St.  Paul  took  up  her  course.  Chirikov 

1  The  five  sections  were:  (1)  Arkhangelsk  to  the  Ob  River;  (2)  Ob  to  the  Yenisei;  (3)  Yenisei  to  Cape  Taimyr;  (4)  Lena 
westward  to  Cape  Taimyr;  (5)  Lena  eastward  to  the  Anadyr. 

The  routes  of  the  first  two  sections  were  successfully  carried  out  without  the  loss  of  men,  although  the  exploration  took 
more  time  than  was  originally  estimated. 

The  head  of  the  third  section,  the  pilot  Minim,  failed  to  carry  out  his  commission  on  account  of  being  blocked  by  ice. 

The  fourth  section  was  in  the  beginning  affected  by  many  difficulties  and  tragic  incidents.  The  first  chief,  Lieutenant 
Pronchistcheff,  and  his  wife  died  almost  at  the  same  time  from  hardships  and  exhaustion.  Pronchistcheff’s  successor, 
Khariton  Lapteff,  carried  out  the  work  after  many  adventures. 

The  fifth  section  with  a  crew  of  fifty  men  was  under  the  command  of  Lieutenant  Lasinius.  During  the  first  winter 
scurvy  broke  out  among  the  men.  Lasinius  was  the  first  victim  of  the  disease,  followed  by  thirty-five  others.  His  successor, 
appointed  by  Bering,  Dmitry  Lapteff,  succeeded  in  reaching  the  mouth  of  the  Kolyma  River,  but  all  efforts  to  sail  farther 
east  were  fruitless.  He  then  decided  to  go  in  the  fall  to  Anadyr  by  dog  teams.  Reaching  the  Anadyr  River  by  the  way  of 
the  Great  Anui  River,  he  built  row  boats  and  went  down  to  the  mouth  of  Anadyr.  Not  finding  a  vessel  there,  as  he  expected, 
he  returned  by  land  to  the  Kolyma  and  from  there  to  St.  Petersburg. 

2  Brother  of  the  famous  astronomer,  Joseph  Nicolas  Delisle. 


6 


Archeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


reached  America  36  hours  earlier  than  Bering.  On  July  17  he  was  in  view  of  the 
island  now  called  Chichagov,  under  57°  50'.  He  successively  sent  ashore  two 
boats  in  order  to  look  for  an  anchorage  and  to  come  in  contact  with  the  natives, 
but  neither  of  these  was  ever  seen  again. 

As  there  were  no  other  boats,  it  was  quite  impossible  to  visit  the  shore  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  fresh  water,  of  which  there  was  need,  and  therefore  the  officers 
decided  to  go  back  to  Kamchatka  as  quickly  as  possible.  On  July  26  the  St.  Paul 
started  back,  on  its  way  anchoring  near  some  of  the  Aleutian  Islands.  The 
scarcity  of  water,  lack  of  properly  cooked  food,  sufferings  from  storms  and  exposure 
broke  the  health  of  nearly  all  the  men,  and  out  of  seventy-five  men,  twenty-one  lost 
their  lives,  among  them  Louis  Delisle  de  la  Croyere.  The  St.  Paul  reached  Avacha 
Bay  on  October  8. 

More  gloomy  was  the  fate  of  the  St.  Peter,  commanded  by  Bering  himself. 
After  separating  from  the  St.  Paul  and  the  unsuccessful  search  for  it,  the  St.  Peter 
continued  its  journey,  changing  its  course  several  times.  July  20,  1741,  the  vessel 
reached  the  American  shore,  namely  the  Kayak  (St.  Elias)  Island.  Up  to  June  25, 
the  direction  steered  was  south-southwest.  On  account  of  stormy  weather  the 
southwest  course  was  kept  until  the  thirty-first,  when  it  cleared  up  sufficiently  to 
sail  northwest,  and  by  this  maneuver  the  St.  Peter  passed  near  Ukamak  Island. 
On  the  third  of  August,  in  latitude  56°,  the  mainland  came  into  view  once  more. 
Not  being  able  to  go  farther  to  the  westward,  the  boat  sailed  with  easterly  wind 
on  a  southerly  course,  and  in  doing  so  ran  into  the  Kodiak  group  of  islands.  On 
August  7  there  began  one  of  those  storms  which  made  the  return  voyage  so  tragic. 
All  of  the  ship’s  officers  met  on  August  10  for  deliberation  and  agreed  that,  owing 
to  the  lateness  of  the  season,  the  fact  that  twenty-six  men  were  down  with  scurvy 
and  that  about  four  hundred  miles  still  separated  them  from  Kamchatka,  the 
idea  of  exploring  the  American  coast  should  be  given  up  and  all  haste  made  to 
reach  Kamchatka. 

After  touching  the  Shumagin  and  other  Aleutian  Islands  and  experiencing 
the  most  violent  storms,  the  St.  Peter  reached,  on  November  6,  1741,  Bering  Island, 
which  at  first  was  taken  by  the  crew  for  Kamchatka.  They  remained  on  the  island 
until  August  13,  1742.  Thirty  of  the  seventy-seven  men  lost  their  lives  from  the 
time  of  leaving  Avacha  until  January  8,  1742,  when  the  last  of  the  diseased  men 
passed  away.  Bering  himself  died  on  December  8,  1741. 

Thus  Bering’s  second  expedition  to  discover  the  western  shore  of  North 
America  did  not  solve  the  problem  whether  Asia  is  separated  from  America  in 
the  northern  latitudes. 

Accounts  of  the  vain  attempts  of  Russian  navigators  in  the  Arctic  after  Ber¬ 
ing’s  expedition  to  reach  the  Bering  Strait  along  the  Siberia  shore1  are  omitted. 

1  We  must  mention,  however,  the  voyage  of  the  Cossack  Semen  Deshneff  in  1648.  His  starting  point  was  the  mouth 
of  the  Kolyma  River  and,  according  to  his  report,  he  reached  the  Anadyr  River  by  water,  rounding  up  the  Chukchee  Penin¬ 
sula.  Professor  Golder  ( Russian  Expansion  on  the  Pacific  164-1-1850,  Cleveland,  p.  94,  1914)  gives  little  credit  to  Deshneff’s 
account,  while  Professor  Berg  ( Information  on  the  Bering  Strait  and  its  Shores  before  Bering  and  Cook,  Petrograd,  1920,  pp. 
31-24,  in  Russian),  in  criticising  Golder’s  opinion,  submits  data  which  may  support  the  correctness  of  Deshneff’s  account. 


History 


7 


In  1778,  Cook  passed  through  Bering  Strait,  doubled  East  Cape  and  sailed 
along  the  northeast  coast  of  Asia  to  Cape  North.1  This  achievement  stimulated 
the  Russian  Government  in  1785  to  send  to  the  north  coast  of  Siberia  an  expedi¬ 
tion  under  Joseph  Billings  and  Gavriil  Sarycheff.2  One  of  Billings’  officers,  Guilev, 
charted  the  shore  from  St.  Lawrence  Bay  to  Koluchin  Island.  Billings  himself 
charted  the  Koluchin  Bay.  But  there  remained  to  double  the  Shelagski  Cape. 

For  a  time  it  was  doubted  whether  Shelagski  was  a  cape.  James  Burney3  advanced 
the  theory  that  it  was  an  isthmus  connecting  Asia  with  America.  Ferdinand 
von  Wrangell4  rounded  the  Shelagski  Peninsula  by  a  dog  team  in  February  1821. 

In  February  of  1823  he  departed  once  more  from  the  Kolyma  River  for  Shelagski 
Cape,  and  reaching  it  he  continued  his  march  eastward  to  Koluchin  Bay.  His 
efforts,  joined  to  those  of  Cook  and  Billings,  proved  finally  that  Asia  and  America 
were  not  united.  In  1909  the  whole  shore  from  the  mouth  of  the  Kolyma  River 
to  the  East  Cape  (or  Deshneff  Cape  of  the  Russians)  was  charted  by  the  military 
topographer,  N.  J.  Koshevnikoff,  and  the  geodesist,  E.  F.  Weber,  members  of  the 
Chukotski  Expedition  under  the  geologist  I.  P.  Tolmachoff,5  now  curator  of  the 
Department  of  Invertebrate  Palaeontology  of  the  Carnegie  Museum,  of  Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania. 

SPANBERG’S  VOYAGE 

One  of  the  main  aims  of  the  Bering  Expedition  was  to  enter  into  friendly  rela¬ 
tions  with  Japan.  Japanese  captives  brought  to  St.  Petersburg  gave  detailed 
information  on  Japan,  which  aroused  much  interest  in  that  little-known  country. 

On  the  other  hand  the  Japanese  Government  of  that  time  forbade  Japanese  sailors, 
to  visit  foreign  countries,  and  the  landing  of  alien  navigators  was  limited  to  certain 
ports  only. 

Spanberg  made  three  voyages  to  the  shores  of  Japan  in  the  years  1738,  1739 
and  1742.  In  the  first  two  voyages  he  had  three  vessels  under  his  command;  in 
the  third,  four.  Spanberg  was  very  cautious  in  exploring  Japan’s  shores,  always 
fearing  to  get  into  conflict  with  the  Japanese  authorities.  He  did  not  approach  the 
coast,  lying  at  anchor  a  mile  from  the  shore,  and  Japanese  visitors  on  his  vessel 
were  received  with  suspicion.  Therefore  his  information  on  Japan  was  very 
scanty.  A  little  bolder  was  one  of  Spanberg’s  assistants,  Walton,  the  commander 
of  the  ship  Nadezhda.  In  the  voyage  of  1739  he  was  separated  from  the  other 
navigators  by  a  storm,  as  Muller  narrates.6  Spanberg  charged  that  Walton 
intentionally  disappeared;  Professor  Berg7  is  of  the  same  opinion.  Walton  sighted 
Nippon  on  June  16.  The  following  day  he  came  to  a  large  city  and  coasted  in 
sight  of  the  shore,  and  sent  the  pilot  Kasimeroff  and  seven  sailors  in  a  boat  to  the 
shore  to  fetch  fresh  water.  Kasimeroff  was  invited  and  entertained  by  the  owners 

1  James  Cook,  Voyage  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  London,  1784,  vol.  u,  p.  466. 

2  See  J.  Billings,  Voyage,  London,  1802,  ed.  by  Martin  Sauer,  p.  28  and  Appendix;  G.  Sarycheff,  Account  of  a  Voyage  of 
Discovery,  London,  1806. 

3  J.  A.  Burney,  Chronological  History  of  the  North-Eastern  Voyages  of  Discovery  and  of  the  Early  Navigation  of  the  Rus¬ 
sians,  London,  Chap,  xxv,  1819. 

4F.  von  Wrangell,  Siberia  and  the  Polar  Sea,  London,  1840. 

6 1.  P.  Tolmachoff,  Along  the  Chukchee  Shore  of  the  Arctic  Sea,  St.  Petersburg,  1911  (in  Russian),  with  a  map.  # 

6G.  F.  Muller,  Sammlung  Russischer  Geschichte,  vol.  in,  pp.  168,  169. 

7  Berg,  op.  cit.  p.  91. 


8 


Archeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


of  two  houses,  and  some  of  the  Japanese  accompanied  him  to  the  Russian  vessel, 
where  they  were  treated  by  Walton  and  exchanged  presents  with  him.  Walton 
went  farther  south,  and  on  June  22  came  to  anchor  in  sight  of  a  large  city.  Junks 
which  came  to  the  ship  were  asked  to  bring  fresh  water.  They  complied  with 
the  request  and  offered  to  take  the  boat  into  the  port,  but  Walton  declined.  In 
the  meantime  a  boat  approached  the  shore  and  an  official  in  military  dress  forbade 
the  Japanese  to  have  further  communication  with  the  Russians. 

It  is  very  curious  to  note  that  the  Japanese  records1  on  Spanberg’s  and  Wal¬ 
ton’s  visits  to  Japanese  waters,  while  giving  dates  in  accordance  with  the  Russian 
accounts,  picture  the  intercourse  with  the  Russian  ships  in  the  light  of  strict 
observance  of  the  regulations  concerning  the  isolation  of  Japan  from  foreign  influ¬ 
ence  and  suppression  of  Japanese  navigation  abroad  by  the  Shogunate,  issued 
about  a  hundred  years  before  Bering. 

Although  Spanberg’s  and  Walton’s  information  concerning  Japan  was  less 
satisfactory  than  might  be  expected,  their  explorations  were  valuable  from  the 
general  point  of  view  of  geographical  knowledge.  They  charted  the  southern 
part  of  Kamchatka,  the  Kurilian  Islands  and  a  part  of  Japan;  they  were  the  first 
to  discover  the  route  to  Japan  from  the  north;  they  demonstrated  that  the  imaginary 
Land  of  Gama  did  not  exist  and  that  the  so-called  State  Island  and  Company 
Land  are  two  of  the  Kuril  Islands;2  that  Yezo  is  a  comparatively  small  island 
and  not  a  continent,  and  that  Japan  is  not  a  Peninsula  of  Tartary,  as  the  old 
geographers  believed. 

'  1  See  Berg,  The  Discovery  of  Kamchatka,  etc.,  p.  88. 

2  The  visionary  Gama  Land  Island  was  alleged  to  have  been  discovered  in  the  Pacific  by  the  Spanish  navigator  Juan 
de  Gama  on  his  voyage  from  China  to  New  Spain  in  the  seventeenth  century.  It  appeared  on  a  map  for  the  first  time  in 
1649.  (See  Paul  Teliki,  Atlas  zur  Geschichte  der  Kartographie  der  Japanischen  Inseln,  Budapest,  1909,  p.  141;  and 
F.  A.  Golder,  Bering's  Voyages,  New  York,  Publication  of  the  American  Geographical  Society,  1925,  vol.  II,  p.  19.) 

The  alleged  State  Island  and  Company  Land,  which  are  really  the  Kurilian  Islands  Urup  and  Iturup,  were  discovered 
in  1643  by  the  Dutch  navigator  M.  G.  Vries  (see  P.  A.  Leupe,  Reize  van  Maarten  Gerritszoon  Vries  in  1643  naar  het  noorden 
en  oosten  van  Japan  volgens  het  journaal  gehouden  door  C.  J.  Coen,  op  het  schip  Castricum,  published  under  the  auspices 
of  the  Koninklijk  Instituut  voor  Taal-Land,  en  Volkenkunda  van  Nederlandsch  Indie,  Amsterdam,  1858.  It  was  the  first 
publication  of  the  journal  of  Vries’s  voyage  of  1643). 

The  astronomer,  Joseph  Nicolas  Delisle,  drew  up  for  the  second  expedition  under  Bering  a  map  of  the  Pacific  on  which 
De  Gama  and  Company  Land  were  indicated. 


CHAPTER  II 

JAPANESE  SHIPWRECKS  NEAR  KAMCHATKA  SHORE 

Restrictive  legislation  of  the  Shoguns,  concerning  Japanese  navigation,  tended 
to  keep  Japanese  boats  in  home  waters,  but  storms  of  the  rough  Japanese  Sea 
often  brought  them  to  Kamchatka. 

About  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  one  Japanese  junk,  after  losing  its 
mast  in  a  storm,  for  six  months  was  carried  about  by  the  currents  until  it  was 
thrown  up  on  the  western  shore  of  the  Kamchatka  Peninsula,  not  far  from  the 
mouth  of  the  Opala  River.  Of  the  twelve  Japanese  who  were  in  the  junk,  three  were 
taken  prisoners  by  the  Kamchadal  and  nine  succeeded  in  escaping  in  their  junk 
in  an  unknown  direction.  Two  of  the  three  prisoners  soon  died  from  the  Kam¬ 
chadal  diet,  to  which  they' could  not  become  accustomed.  The  name  of  the 
Japanese  who  lived  was  Denbei.  The  Cossack  chief  Atlassoff,  during  his 
campaign  in  Kamchatka  of  1697-1699,  learned  from  the  Kamchadal  of  their 
Japanese  prisoner.  He  took  him  to  Anadyr,  and  in  1701  he  was  brought  to  Moscow, 
and  in  January  1702  he  was  presented  to  Peter  the  Great.  Denbei  was  the  first 
Japanese  who  reached  Russia  and  from  him  the  Czar  got  his  first  information  of 
Japan.  At  the  order  of  the  Czar,  Denbei  taught  some  Russians  the  Japanese 
language.  The  Czar  promised  to  let  him  go  home,  but  did  not  keep  his  word. 
Denbei  was  ordered  to  be  baptised  and  received  the  name  of  Gabriel. 

In  1710  another  Japanese  junk  was  wrecked  on  Kamchatka’s  shore  to  the 
north  of  Avacha  Bay.  There  were  ten  Japanese,  four  of  whom  were  killed  by  the 
Kamchadal  and  six  taken  prisoners.  Some  were  taken  from  the  Kamchadal  by 
the  Russian  conquerors  and  kept  in  their  fortresses  where  they  were  taught  Russian. 
One  of  the  prisoners,  Sanime  by  name,  was  brought  to  St.  Petersburg  in  1714. 

In  July  1729  a  third  Japanese  vessel  was  brought  to  Kamchatka,  somewhere 
between  Lopatka  and  Avacha,  having  on  board  17  Japanese.  It  was  a  trading 
vessel  which  carried  goods  from  Satzuma  to  Osaka.  Soon  after  landing  the 
Japanese  were  discovered  by  the  Cossack  chief,  A.  Stinnikov,  and  the  Kamchadal 
accompanying  him.  At  first  the  Japanese  were  well  treated.  When  the  Japanese 
saw  that  Stinnikov  was  plundering  goods  from  their  wrecked  vessel,  they  tried 
to  escape  in  a  small  boat,  but  Stinnikov  ordered  his  Kamchadal  to  overtake  and 
kill  the  Japanese.  A  part  of  them  were  killed  by  arrows,  lances  or  sabers,  obtained 
from  the  Japanese  themselves.  Some  of  them  were  drowned.  Only  two  remained 
alive — a  wounded  boy,  Gonza,  and  an  adult  Japanese,  Soza,  who  were  dragged 
from  the  water.  When  the  news  of  the  Japanese  massacre  reached  the  higher 
authorities  an  order  was  given  to  arrest  Stinnikov,  and  he  was  hanged  for  his 
crime.  Gonza  and  Soza  were  sent  to  European  Russia.  In  1734  they  reached 


9 


10 


Archeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


St.  Petersburg  and  were  presented  to  the  Empress  Anna  Ioanovna.  In  the  same 
year  they  were  baptized ;  Gonza  was  named  Damian  Pomortzev,  and  Soza,  Kosma 
Shultz.  They  were  charged  to  teach  Japanese  to  the  students  of  the  Academy  of 
Sciences.  Neither  lived  long — Soza  died  in  1736  at  the  age  of  43  and  Gonza  in 
1739,  being  only  21. 

Some  years  later  (1745)  other  Japanese  wrecked  at  Kamchatka’s  shore  were 
brought  to  St.  Petersburg  for  the  same  purpose,  but  the  Japanese  were  simple 
fishers  and  hardly  could  be  used  as  teachers.1  Such  wreckages  of  Japanese  ships 
repeatedly  took  place  about  that  time.  The  explorer  Lesseps  mentions  nine  Japan¬ 
ese  whose  ships  were  wrecked  at  the  Aleutian  Islands  in  1788  and  whom  he  brought 
to  Kamchatka.2 

THE  UPRISING  OF  THE  KAMCHADAL 
THE  causes  of  revolts 

The  causes  of  revolts  of  the  Kamchadal  were  the  cruelty,  violence,  greediness 
with  reference  to  fur-skins,  and  the  licentiousness  of  the  Cossack  chiefs  and  soldiers 
on  the  peninsula.  On  the  other  hand  frequent  mutinies  of  Cossacks  against  their 
chiefs  and  the  incessant  feuds  between  the  chiefs  and  their  parties  could  not 
inspire  respect  from  the  oppressed  natives.  Numerous  local  revolts  had  taken 
place  from  the  very  beginning  of  the  occupation  of  the  country  by  the.  Cossacks. 
Rebels  and  victors  were  equally  merciless  in  their  encounters.  A  general  uprising 
of  the  Kamchadal  which  had  been  fomenting  for  a  long  time  broke  out  in  1731. 
The  Kamchadal  were  ready  to  rise  before  that  date  but  did  not  dare  to  do  so. 

In  1729  Kamchatka  was  visited  by  the  first  scientific  expedition  of  Bering 
and  his  companions  who  had  armed  crews.  The  ship  Gabriel,  with  a  crew  of  one 
hundred  men  belonging  to  the  military  expedition  of  the  Cossack  chief,  Afanassy 
Shestakoff,  remained  in  Nishne-Kamchatsk  until  July  1731.  According  to  the 
original  plan  of  Shestakoff’s  military  expedition,  the  Gabriel,  after  leaving 
Okhotsk,  was  to  visit  Kamchatka  and  to  proceed  from  there  to  the  mouth  of  the 
Alutor  River,  where  the  commander  of  the  expedition,  Shestakoff,  expected  to 
arrive  by  land  from  the  shore  of  the  Okhotsk  Sea,  in  order  to  subdue  the  Alutor 
Koryak;  from  there  it  was  intended  that  the  ship  should  sail  to  the  mouth  of  the 
Anadyr  River,  exploring  the  shores  on  the  way,  and  continue  up  the  river  to  the 
fortification  at  Anadyrsk,  which  Shestakoff  intended  to  reach  by  land.  But 
Shestakoff’s  party  was  defeated  and  he  himself  killed  by  the  Koryak  after  he  had 
crossed  the  Paren  River.  When  the  news  of  Shestakoff’s  death  arrived,  the 
Gabriel  remained  in  Kamchatka,  awaiting  further  orders.  In  June  1731  she  was 
ordered  to  proceed  to  the  Anadyr  and  to  enter  the  service  of  Pavlutsky,  Shestakoff’s 
lieutenant. 

As  soon  as  the  Gabriel  had  weighed  anchor  and  gained  the  open  sea,  the 
Kamchadal  attacked  the  fortress  Nishne-Kamchatsk  and  took  possession  of  it. 
Presently  a  detachment  was  despatched  to  take  Verkhne-Kamchatsk  and  Bol- 

1  W.  W.  Barthold,  Die  geographische  und  historische  Erforschung  des  Orients  mit  besonderer  Beriicksichtigung  der  Rus- 
siachen  Arbeiten,  Leipzig,  1913,  p.  130. 

2  M.  de  Lesseps,  Travels  in  Kamchatka,  English  Translation  from  French,  vol.  i,  London,  p.  208. 


Japanese  Shipwrecks  near  Kamchatka  Shore 


11 


sheretsk,  and  everywhere  the  Russians  were  slain.  It  so  happened,  however, 
that  the  Gabriel  unexpectedly  returned  on  account  of  an  impending  storm,  not 
being  prepared  for  a  sea-voyage;  and  besides  the  crew  were  not  eager  to  go  to 
Anadyr.  The  sudden  return  of  the  Gabriel  saved  the  Russians  of  the  Peninsula. 
With  the  assistance  of  the  sailors,  Verkhne-Kamchatsk  and  Bolsheretsk  were 
successfully  held;  Nishne-Kamchatsk  was  recaptured  and  the  revolt  was 
suppressed. 

When  the  news  of  the  revolt  and  its  suppression  reached  Yakutsk  the  Admin¬ 
istration  resolved  to  send  a  commission  to  Kamchatka  to  investigate  the  cause  of 
the  uprising  and  the  revolts  of  the  Cossacks  against  their  chiefs.  At  the  head  of 
the  commission  were  Majors  Mekhlin  and  Pavlutzky,  former  lieutenants  of  Shes- 
takoff.  The  investigation  lasted  from  1733  to  1739.  Sentences  of  death  were 
passed  by  the  commissioners  on  several  Kamchadal  chiefs  and  other  instigators 
of  the  uprising,  as  well  as  on  Cossacks  convicted  of  criminal  actions.  Among 
the  Russians  executed  was  the  Cossack  officer  Stinnikov,  who  in  1729  ordered 
the  killing  of  the  Japanese  and  robbed  their  ship,  which  was  carried  by  the  winds  to 
the  southern  shores  of  Kamchatka. 

SOME  MENTAL  TRAITS  OF  THE  OLD  KAMCHADAL 

The  old  Kamchadal  were  proud,  independent,  inclined  to  wrath;  their  passions 
were  easily  aroused;  they  took  offense  readily  and  tried  to  avenge  themselves  by 
any  possible  means.  They  had  no  fear  of  death  and  could  not  be  frightened. 
In  order  to  demonstrate  the  psychology  of  the  old  Kamchadal  some  historical 
instances  are  cited  of  the  relations  between  the  Russians  and  Kamchadal  before 
the  final  pacification  of  the  latter. 

In  the  winter  of  1712  the  Chief  Antzyferoff  with  25  Cossacks  endeavored  to 
collect  tribute  from  the  Avacha  Kamchadal  near  where  the  fortress  of  Petropav- 
lovsk  was  subsequently  established.  The  Avacha  Kamchadal  were  informed  of 
the  imminent  arrival  of  the  collectors.  They  built  a  solid  blockhouse  on  posts 
with  secretly  lifting  doors.1  The  Russians  were  met  with  simulated  pleasure. 
Amidst  mutual  professions  of  friendship  the  transactions  began,  the  Kamchadal 
readily  surrendering  a  number  of  their  principal  men  as  hostages  for  their  good 
behavior.  At  night  they  retired  with  the  Cossacks  to  the  pile-dwelling  for  sleep. 
But  the  natives  planned  to  burn  the  building  in  the  night  and  with  it  all  the  in¬ 
mates.  Their  own  men,  however,  were  to  escape  through  a  secret  passageway. 
But  after  the  pile-dwelling  was  fired,  they  learned  to  their  horror  that  their  host¬ 
ages  had  been  chained  by  the  Cossacks  so  that  escape  was  impossible.  The 
hostages,  however,  pleaded  with  their  kinsmen  outside  to  let  the  holocaust  go  on 
if,  by  perishing  themselves,  they  could  secure  the  destruction  of  the  enemy,  and 
so  all  in  the  building  perished  together. 

Among  the  Kamchadal  leaders  of  the  revolt  was  the  chief  of  Yelovka  River,  a 
tributary  of  the  Kamchatka  River,  Tighil  by  name.  When  Nishne-Kamchatsk 

1  The  old  Kamchadal  usually  used  such  dwellings  on  platforms  raised  on  piles  as  summer  houses  and  now  as  store¬ 
houses. 


12 


Archaeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


was  taken  by  the  Russians,  Tighil  escaped  to  his  fortified  settlement  in  the  moun¬ 
tains  of  Yelovka.  Being  pursued  and  overtaken  by  the  Russians,  he  slaughtered 
his  wives,  children,  kinsmen  and  dogs  and  killed  himself. 

One  of  the  chiefs,  sentenced  to  death  as  an  instigator  of  the  uprising,  laughingly 
complained  before  the  execution  that  he  had  the  ill-luck  to  be  hanged  the  last. 

The  present  Kamchadal,  however,  have  completely  changed  their  psychology. 
They  have  a  pitiful  and  humble  appearance,  and  carry  out  each  and  every  order 
of  the  Cossacks  and  the  Russians  in  general.  Evidently  the  process  of  Russianiza- 
tion,  combined  with  two  centuries  of  oppression  by  the  Russian  authorities,  has 
brought  about  this  change  in  the  primitive  character  of  the  Kamchadal.  This 
change,  however,  did  not  take  place  suddenly,  but  the  tense  energy  of  the  people 
displayed  in  the  general  uprising  was  broken,  never  to  recover.  They  became 
pacified. 

THE  YASSAK  OR  FUR  TRIBUTE 

The  Kamchadal  rebellions  were  chiefly  caused  by  the  extortionate  demands 
made  by  the  Cossacks  and  officials  for  furs  and  services  for  themselves.  According 
to  Krasheninnikoff1  the  Empress  Elizabeth,  after  the  general  rebellion  was  crushed, 
issued  an  order  limiting  the  yassak  to  one  skin  to  a  hunter  of  what  ever  animal  he 
could  bring;  other  historians  of  Siberia  state  it  differently.  The  main  factor 
attracting  the  Russians  to  Siberia  in  the  early  period  of  settlement  was  its  wealth 
in  furs.  For  one  time  furs  were  an  important  financial  item  in  the  budget  of  the 
Russian  Empire;  in  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  Treasury  monopo¬ 
lized  the  fur  trade.  Czar  Boris  Godunoff  decreed  that  the  hunters  and  fur-traders 
deposit  their  merchandise  in  the  Treasury  for  a  fixed  remuneration.  The  accumu¬ 
lated  furs  were  placed  in  the  care  of  a  special  department  in  Moscow,  which 
disposed  of  them  through  its  agents  in  Turkey,  Persia,  Bokhara  and  later  in  China. 
China  in  time  became  the  largest  and  most  profitable  consumer  of  Siberian  furs, 
for  in  exchange  for  its  furs  the  Treasury  would  import  from  China  gold  and 
silver  with  which  the  Moscowite  Empire  paid  for  its  wars.  The  China  trade  con¬ 
tinued  to  be  a  Government  monopoly  until  1762.  In  that  year  Empress  Catherine 
II  abolished  the  official  caravans  to  Peking,  leaving  the  trade,  which  was  still 
based  chiefly  on  furs,  in  the  hands  of  private  merchants.  The  free  fur  trade  had 
a  stimulating  effect  on  the  development  of  commercial  relations  between  Siberia, 
European  Russia  and  the  neighboring  countries.  The  Treasury  on  the  other 
hand  no  longer  insisted  that  the  tribute  of  Siberia  be  paid  in  furs  exclusively. 
They  were  now  free  to  pay  their  tribute  in  money,  the  amount  being  approximately 
estimated  according  to  the  value  of  the  furs.  Thus  the  field  for  official  abuses 
was  reduced,  and  the  attitude  of  the  natives  toward  the  Russians  began  to  improve. 

Attempts  to  subject  the  Kamchadal  coincides  with  the  period  of  the  Govern¬ 
ment  monopoly  in  furs,  when  fur  tribute  was  the  cause  for  which  thousands  of  men 
were  tortured  and  killed  whenever  they  refused  or  were  not  able  to  satisfy  the 
rapaciousness  of  the  foreign  invaders.  The  situation  of  the  Kamchadal  was 


1  Krasheninnikoff,  part  ii,  p.  387. 


Japanese  Shipwrecks  near  Kamchatka  Shore 


13 


particularly  tragic,  as  the  sable,  for  whose  fur  the  Russian  demand  was  greatest, 
was  an  animal  which  inhabited  Kamchatka  and  not  the  territories  to  the  north 
of  it. 

The  question  as  to  how  tribute  was  to  be  levied  was  later  put  on  a  definite 
basis  by  the  so-called  First  Tribute  (Yassak)  Commission  of  1762-1766.  The 
reform  introduced  by  the  commission  was  based  on  the  following  principles:  (1) 
The  tribute  is  to  be  paid  by  a  representative  for  the  clan  or  group;  the  further 
apportionment  of  the  tribute  among  the  individual  hunters  is  left  to  the  natives 
themselves.  (2)  The  representative  of  the  group  is  to  deliver  the  tribute  in  person 
to  the  administrative  center;  collectors  are  abolished.  (3)  Subject  to  the  tribute 
are  native  men  from  sixteen  to  sixty  years  of  age,  who  are  to  be  called  “workers” 
or  “tax  souls.”  (4)  Payment  may  be  made  in  furs  or  in  money,  the  amount  being 
calculated  in  money  for  each  person,  and  varying  in  the  case  of  fur  payments 
according  to  locality,  the  nature  of  the  animals  and  the  current  valuation  of  the 
latter.  These  principles,  with  some  additions  and  a  general  lowering  of  the 
amount  of  tribute  to  be  paid,  were  accepted  by  the  Second  Tribute  Commission 
of  1828-1835.  The  age  of  workers  was  limited  to  men  from  eighteen  to  fifty. 
The  number  of  workers  of  every  clan  was  fixed  by  the  census.  The  last  census  for 
this  purpose  was  taken  in  1859. 

The  fur-tribute,  however,  continued  to  be  levied  and  to  serve  as  a  way  to 
abuses  for  officials  until  the  February  revolution  of  1917,  when  the  Provisional 
Government  under  Kerensky  abolished  altogether  this  form  of  taxation  of  the 
Siberian  natives.1 


1  The  author  contributed  to  the  decree  by  hia  articles  in  the  press  on  the  Yassak  question. 


14 


Archaeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


Fig.  1 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  COUNTRY  AND  SOMATOLOGY  OF  THE  KAMCHADAL 

GEOLOGICAL  PAST  OF  KAMCHATKA 

Professor  Obruchev1  says  that  at  the  end  of  the  Miocene  Epoch  the  western 
shore  of  Kamchatka  was  sinking,  and  Professor  Bogdanovich2  supposes  that  during 
the  Pliocene  Epoch  a  considerable  part  of  the  present  western  and  eastern  shores 
of  the  peninsula  were  still  covered  with  water.  The  beginning  of  the  Quaternary, 
says  Obruchev,  evidently  formed  a  continental  phase  which  set  in  after  the  sink¬ 
ing  phase  of  the  Mio-Pliocene  Epochs;  the  land  in  Siberia  reached  its  maximum 
extension;  the  Bering  Strait  did  not  exist  as  yet,  and  the  Chukchee  Peninsula 
was  connected  with  Alaska,  and  therefore  the  northeast  of  Siberia  must  have  had 
a  milder  climate  than  at  present.  But  all  these  are  geological  periods  which  pre¬ 
ceded  the  appearance  of  man. 

The  Pleistocene  Epoch,  which  is  associated  with  the  existence  of  man,  may  be 
proved  in  the  valley  of  the  Kamchatka  River,  according  to  Bogdanovich,  by  the 
frequent  occurrence  of  remains  of  the  mammoth  and  the  Bison  priscus.  But 
nothing  is  said  about  the  remains  of  man.  In  many  places  of  Siberia  man  was 
contemporaneous  with  the  mammoth,  but  there  is  a  question  whether  the  same 
was  true  in  Kamchatka.  About  the  end  of  the  Pleistocene  Epoch,  says  Bogdano¬ 
vich,  there  was  an  extensive  glaciation  in  many  places  of  Kamchatka. 

These  climatic  changes  do  not  interfere  with  our  theory  of  the  migration  to 
America  of  the  Siberian-Americanoid  tribes,  including  the  Kamchadal,  in  one  of 
the  Interglacial  Epochs,  and  of  their  remigration  to  northeastern  Siberia  after 
it  was  released  from  the  ice. 

But  especially  on  the  Kamchatka  Peninsula  must  it  be  noted  that  our  theoret¬ 
ical  considerations  are  proved  by  archaeological  evidence.3  No  artifacts  of  the 
palaeolithic  man  were  discovered  by  the  author  on  Kamchatka,  and  it  is  possible 
that  no  man  lived  during  the  old  stone  age  on  the  Kamchatka  Peninsula.  It 
remains,  however,  for  the  future  to  prove  or  disprove  it.  In  order  to  clear  up  my 
doubts  in  this  respect  I  communicated  with  my  friend  the  Russian  geologist, 
Professor  I.  P.  Tolmachoff,  now  curator  of  the  Department  of  Invertebrate  Palaeon¬ 
tology  of  the  Carnegie  Museum,  Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania.  He  is  well  known  by 
his  explorations  in  northeastern  Siberia.  He  writes  that  it  is  hardly  proper  to 
conclude  that  man  lived  in  the  Kamchatka  River  valley  in  the  Pleistocene  Epoch 
on  the  only  ground  that  remains  of  mammoth  and  Bison  priscus  were  found  there. 
Mammoth  and  man  very  often  were  neighbors  but,  as  it  seems,  this  dependence 

1  W.  A.  Obruchev,  Geologie  von  Siberien,  Berlin,  1926. 

2  Karl  Bogdanovich,  Geologische  Skizze  von  Kamtschatka,  Petermann’s  Mitteilungen,  Band  50,  1904,  pp.  66,  198,  217. 

3  Waldemar  Jochelson,  Archseological  Investigations  in  the  Aleutian  Islands,  Pub.  No.  367,  Carnegie  Inst.  Wash.,  1925. 

Idem,  The  Ethnological  Problems  of  Bering  Sea,  Natural  History,  Jour.  Amer.  Mus.,  Jan.-Feb.,  1926,  vol.  xxvi,  No. 

1,  pp.  90-95. 


15 


16 


Archaeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


was  not  necessarily  mutual.  Man  might  follow  the  mammoth  in  order  to  hunt 
him,  but  the  mammoth  had  no  need  of  man.  Thus  the  remains  of  mammoth  do 
not  indicate  that  man  lived  in  the  same  place,  if  there  is  no  direct  proof  of  it. 
However,  the  presence  of  the  mammoth  may  postulate  to  climatic  conditions 
fit  for  man  to  live  in,  and  it  remains  for  the  future  to  find  remains  of  the  palaeo¬ 
lithic  man;  but  for  the  time  being  one  may  be  right  to  hold  to  the  theory  of  the 
peopling  of  Kamchatka  in  Recent  Times,  especially  since  no  palaeolithic  artifacts 
were  discovered  in  my  excavations,  and  I  feel  authorized  to  say  that  the 
late  peopling  of  Kamchatka  may  corroborate  the  theory  of  the  reemigration  of 
the  Siberian  Americanoids  from  America  after  the  last  glaciation  subsided.  To 
be  fair,  however,  I  must  add  that  I  had  no  time  to  make  excavations  in  the  Kam¬ 
chatka  River  valley  and  that  no  regular  excavations  were  made  in  the  territory 
of  the  other  Americanoids — the  Koryak,  Chukchee  and  Yukaghir. 

GEOGRAPHY  AND  ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISIONS 

The  country  of  the  Kamchadal — or  the  part  of  the  Kamchatka  Peninsula  to  the 
south,  from  the  Amanino  village  to  the  west,  and  Osernaya  River  to  the  east — was  a 
part  of  the  Primorskaya  Province.  In  1909  a  new  province  of  Kamchatka  was 
created,  which  included  6  districts:  Okhotsk,  Gishiginsk,  Anadyrsk,  Chukotsky, 
Commandor  Islands  and  Petropavlovsky.  The  last  district  is  the  territory  of  the 
Kamchadal.  The  city  of  Petropavlovsk  was  made  the  capital  of  the  province  and 
the  seat  of  a  newly  appointed  Governor. 

The  former  Territory  of  the  Kamchadal  is  inhabited  by  8,037  people,  of  which 
3,370  are  Russians,  3,555  Kamchadal,  802  immigrated  reindeer  Koryak  and  Tungus 
and  300  Chinese,  Koreans  and  Japanese.  There  were  also  10  Europeans  and 
Americans.1 

The  Kamchadal  have  become  Russianized  and  only  the  inhabitants  of  seven 
villages  (between  Amanino  and  Sopochnoye)  of  the  western  coast  have  preserved 
their  native  language — the  western  dialect  of  the  Kamchadal  language — and  the 
inhabitants  of  the  village  Sedanka  on  the  Tighil  River  speak  the  northern  dialect. 
There  were  formerly  four  Kamchadal  dialects,  and  at  present  even  the  Kamcha¬ 
dal,  who  speak  two  dialects,  use  more  of  a  Russian-Kamchadal  slang  than  the 
pure  Kamchadal.  The  younger  generation  is  learning  Russian  in  the  schools,  and 
soon  the  Kamchadal  language  will  be  forgotten  entirely,  as  was  the  case  with 
the  dialect  of  the  Kamchatka  River  and  with  the  southern  dialect,  which  was 
spoken  between  the  Great  River  (Bolshaya  Reka)  and  Lopatka  Cape.  While 
the  northern  dialect  of  the  Kamchadal  on  the  Tighil  River  contains  many  Koryak 
words,  the  southern  dialect  had  an  intermixture  of  Kurilian  words.  Krasheninni- 
koff  called  the  southern  Kamchadal  people  Kurilians. 

The  Kamachdal  had  been  and  still  remain ’a  genuine  fishing  tribe.  They 
did  not  adopt  from  their  Koryak  neighbors  the  reindeer,  although  they  were 

1  According  to  official  data  of  1911.  During  the  summer  fishing  season,  Kamchatka’s  shores  have  many  thousands 
of  temporary  dwellers.  Russians  who  operate  canneries  and  salteries  bring  thousands  of  laborers.  The  number  of 
Japanese  fishers  at  the  time  of  my  stay  in  Kamchatka  was  estimated  at  more  than  10,000.  About  250  Japanese  schooners 
were  lying  near  the  shores  and  about  ten  Japanese  steamers  were  coming  from  and  leaving  for  Japan.  According  to  the 
convention  concluded  after  the  Russian- Japanese  War  the  Japanese  were  authorized  to  fish  everywhere  in  Kamchatka 
waters  except  bays  and  river-mouths,  but  by  bribing  the  guards  they  used  to  fish  also  in  the  inner  waters. 


The  Country  and  Somatology  of  the  Kamchadal 


17 


hunting  the  wild  Kamchatka  variety  of  reindeer.  Fish,  different  species  of  salmon, 
ascend  the  Kamchatka  rivers  in  such  abundance  that  they  amply  satisfy  the  needs 
in  food.  The  Kamchadal  have  no  time  during  the  short  fishing  season  to  dry  or 
smoke  all  the  fish  for  the  winter  and  the  greater  part  of  it  is  put  in  holes  covered 
with  stones  and  earth,  and  during  the  winter  it  is  consumed  in  a  decayed  state  by 
dogs  as  well  as  by  men. 

To  a  certain  degree  the  Kamchadal  of  the  western  coast  hunt  sea  mammals, 
but,  not  having  skin  boats,  they  do  not  go  out  to  the  sea,  but  kill  those  seals, 
white  whales  ( Delphinopterus  leucas)  and  sea  lions  (seldom)  which  enter  the 
mouths  of  rivers  in  order  to  catch  the  ascending  fish.  Thong  nets  are  put  up  for 
that  purpose.  They  also  kill  seals,  spearing  and  shooting  them  at  their  rookeries. 

Horned  cattle  and  horses  were  imported  into  Kamchatka  chiefly  from  the 
Okhotsk  district,  i.  e.,  of  the  Yakut  race.  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  they  are  badly 
cared  for,  they  became  acclimatized  in  Kamchatka  and  are  a  strong  race  of 
domestic  animals.  The  Kamchatka  horses  are  small,  short  necked,  wide  breasted 
and  with  short  legs.  During  the  winter  they  become  covered  with  long  thick  hair, 
particularly  their  legs .  Horses  are  used  only  in  summer — as  riding  and  pack  animals . 
During  the  winter  they  are  set  free  and  have  to  graze  from  under  the  snow;  rarely 
are  they  given  hay  and  they  therefore  turn  wild  and  have  to  be  captured  in  the  sum¬ 
mer  and  trained  again  for  riding. 

Cow’s  milk  plays  at  present  an  important  role  in  the  food  of  the  Kamchadal 
and  Russian  inhabitants  of  the  country.  They  use  sweet  as  well  as  sour  milk  and 
pot  cheese.  Butter  is  rarely  made,  although  the  milk  is  rich  in  fat.  But  the 
Kamchatka  cows  give  a  small  quantity  of  milk,  about  two  or  three  quarts  a  day, 
as  a  result  of  scanty  feeding  in  winter  and  of  being  kept  in  cold  stalls.  The  Kam¬ 
chadal  make  little  hay,  as  the  season  for  fishing  and  hay  making  coincide.  One 
cow  may  be  reckoned  for  every  three  inhabitants.  The  number  of  cattle  may  be 
estimated,  according  to  the  writer’s  census,  at  about  2,000. 

Prior  to  the  advent  of  the  Russian  the  only  domestic  animal  of  the  Kamchadal 
was  the  driving  dog.  The  Kamchadal  dog  was  regarded  as  the  best  and  biggest 
driving  dog  of  Siberia;  at  present,  as  a  result  of  unfavorable  conditions  of  life,  it 
has  become  small  in  size.  The  dogs  work  hard  during  the  long  winter,  but  during 
the  entire  summer  they  are  tied  up,  otherwise  calves  and  colts  and  sometimes  cows 
and  horses  are  in  danger  of  being  torn  by  them.  They  are  kept  far  from  the 
village  and  poorly  fed.  Owing  to  the  economic,  climatic  and  topographic  con¬ 
ditions  of  the  country,  the  Kamchadal  can  not  dispense  with  the  driving  dog,  and 
every  family  has  from  eight  to  fifteen  dogs.  The  number  of  dogs  in  1911  in  Kam¬ 
chatka,  according  to  my  census,  was  more  than  5,000.  The  old  Kamchadal  sledge 
for  riding  astride  is  no  longer  in  use,  the  Russians  having  introduced  the  type  of 
sledge  used  all  over  eastern  Siberia.  The  dogs  are  harnessed  to  the  sledge,  being 
tied  in  pairs  to  a  long  thong. 

There  are  no  domesticated  small  animals,  as  goats  or  sheep  and  birds,  in 
Kamchatka,  as  they  would  be  exterminated  by  the  ever  hungry  dogs,  which  very 
often  find  means  to  free  themselves. 


18 


Archaeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


The  Russian  Government  repeatedly  tried  to  introduce  agriculture  and 
gardening  into  Kamchatka.  For  this  purpose  peasants  from  Southern  Siberia 
and  European  Russia  were  transferred  several  times  to  Kamchatka,  but  all  experi¬ 
ments  have  failed  and  the  imported  husbandmen  turned  to  fishing  and  hunting. 
Only  in  the  valley  of  the  Kamchatka  River,  near  the  village  Kluchevskoye,  small 
sowings  of  barley  are  still  being  made,  but  without  any  economic  importance. 

Experiments  with  gardening  appeared  to  be  more  successful.  Potatoes  grow 
all  over  Southern  Kamchatka  where  the  digging  of  edible  roots  had  almost  ceased. 
Turnips  grow  there  and  the  inhabitants  of  Kluchevskoye  also  grow  cabbage,  which 
heads  well. 

CLIMATE  OF  KAMCHATKA 

The  following  data  on  the  climate  of  the  Kamchatka  Peninsula  are  based  on 
observations  made  in  1908-1909  by  the  members  of  the  Meteorological  Division 
of  the  Riaboushinsky  Expedition  headed  by  Dr.  V.  A.  Vlasov.1 

As  climate  is  one  of  the  most  effective  nature-agents  regulating  human  life, 
data  concerning  three  chief  regions  of  the  country  will  be  given:  the  western 
coast,  the  eastern  coast  and  the  central  part,  represented  chiefly  by  the  valley 
of  the  Kamchatka  River.  The  western  and  the  eastern  shores  represent  maritime 
climates,  while  the  climate  of  the  central  part  may  be  characterized  as  a  conti¬ 
nental  one. 

The  climate  of  the  western  coastline  of  Kamchatka  is  more  severe  than  that 
of  the  eastern,  due  to  the  cold  Okhotsk  Sea.  During  the  winter  cold  winds  prevail, 
blowing  from  the  Siberian  continent,  the  region  of  the  great  Siberian  anticyclone. 
A  late  spring  and  a  cold  summer  characterize  the  climate  of  the  western  coast.  On 
the  eastern  shore  of  Kamchatka,  under  the  moderating  influence  of  the  Pacific 
Ocean,  frosts  in  the  winter  are  not  so  severe.  Rain  and  snowfall  are  more  abun¬ 
dant.  However,  the  cold  current  arriving  from  the  Bering  Strait  and  the  amount 
of  ice  which  it  brings  delay  the  beginning  of  summer  and  reduce  its  temperature. 

The  climate  of  the  central  Kamchatka,  confined  by  its  western  and  eastern 
mountain  ridges,  i.  e.,  the  valley  of  the  Kamchatka  River,  distinguishes  itself  by 
all  the  peculiarities  of  a  continental  climate,  having  a  cold  winter  and  a  compara¬ 
tively  warm  summer.  In  order  to  demonstrate  what  has  been  said  of  the  three 
climatic  regions,  mean  annual  figures  for  three  points  are  given:  for  Tighil  on  the 
western  shore,  Petropavlovsk  on  the  eastern  shore  and  Kluchevskoye  in  the  valley 
of  the  Kamchatka  River. 


Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Year 

°C 

°C 

°C 

°C 

°C 

°C 

°C 

°c 

°C 

°C 

°C 

°C 

°C 

Tighil . 

-20.0 

-19.8 

-13.6 

-2.2 

2.4 

6.2 

11.3 

12.1 

7.0 

-1 .0 

-7.4 

-17.2 

-3.5 

Petropavlovsk. . . . 

-10.9 

-11 .2 

-7.0 

-1.6 

3.1 

7.9 

11 .8 

13.5 

9.8 

4.2 

-1 .8 

-6.6 

1 .0 

Kluchevskoye . 

-16.4 

-15.2 

-11 .3 

-1 .5 

4.6 

8.5 

12.15 

13.1 

8.8 

-1.4 

-7.8 

-18.0 

-2.0 

1  See  V.  A.  Vlasov,  The  Kamchatka  Expedition  of  F.  P.  Riaboushinsky  organized  by  the  Imperial  Russian  Geo¬ 
graphical  Society,  Meteorological  Division,  vol.  i,  part  1,  On  the  Climate  of  Kamchatka;  part  2,  on  The  Temperature  of  the 
Waters.  Moscow,  1916  (in  Russian).  Centigrade  thermometers  were  used. 


The  Country  and  Somatology  of  the  Kamchadal 


19 


From  this  table  it  is  seen  that  the  climate  of  Tighil  is  much  colder  than  that 
of  Petropavlovsk  and  that  the  climate  of  Kluchevskoye,  by  its  yearly  and  some  of 
its  monthly  mean  temperatures,  is  colder  than  that  of  Petropavlovsk,  but  by  its 
summer  temperature  (May,  June  and  July)  it  is  warmer  than  that  of  Petropavlovsk. 


Temperature  of  the  soil.  Monthly  means,  1909. 


Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Ampli¬ 

tude 

Petropavlovsk : 

(1) . 

— 10?5 

— 10?6 

-  7?3 

—  0?5 

8?8 

14?5 

17?6 

15?6 

10?9 

—  4?7 

— 10?5 

28?2 

(2) . 

0  .6 

0.4 

0.3 

0.1 

4.9 

0.3 

13.4 

10.9 

1 .9 

0  .9 

13.3 

(3) . 

1 .9 

1  .6 

1 .4 

0.9 

3.1 

6.5 

12.1 

10.4 

3.6 

2  .4 

11 .2 

(4) 

3  .8 

3.4 

3  .0 

2.6 

1 .6 

2.7 

6.8 

7.1 

5.2 

4  .4 

5  .5 

Kluchevskoye: 

(1) . 

-15  .1 

-17.3 

-12.2 

-2.4 

10.2 

15.6 

19.3 

15.9 

-8.3 

—  19  .3 

38.6 

(2) .. . 

—  9.5 

—  10.3 

-  7.8 

-3.1 

3.5 

9.3 

12.8 

12.4 

-3.0 

—  10  .4 

23  .2 

(3) . 

—  1 .2 

—  2.6 

-2.8 

-2.2 

-0.8 

0.0 

2.0 

4.0 

1 .7 

0  .1 

6.8 

(4) . 

1 .4 

1 .0 

0.7 

0.5 

0.4 

0.4 

0.4 

0.4 

2.7 

2.1 

2.3 

Tighil: 

(1) . 

-15.3 

-20.3 

-14.0 

-2.8 

6.8 

13.0 

15.7 

12.3 

8.4 

1.7 

-6.1 

-15.6 

36.6 

(2) . 

-11 .9 

-14.7 

-12.0 

-3.9 

1 .6 

6.9 

10.6 

10.7 

8.1 

2.7 

0.8 

0.4 

25.4 

(3) . 

-  3.1 

-6.2 

-6.9 

-4.4 

-0.3 

0.0 

1 .1 

4.0 

5.1 

3.0 

0.9 

0.3 

12.0 

(4) . 

0.4 

0.0 

-0.3 

-0.9 

-0.6 

-0.2 

-0.2 

-0.2 

0.0 

0.3 

0.3 

0.2 

1.2 

(1)  means  on  the  surface;  (2)  means  0.25  meter  deep;  (3)  means  1.0  meter  deep;  (4)  means  2.0  meter  deep. 


This  table  is  compiled  from  the  numerous  data  on  this  subject  by  Vlasov, 
in  order  to  show  what  time  of  the  year  may  be  regarded  as  the  most  favorable  for 
making  excavations  in  Kamchatka.  In  Petropavlovsk  from  May  to  September 
inclusive;  in  Kluchevskoye  from  July  to  September;  in  Tighil  in  August  and  Sep¬ 
tember,  and  even  in  these  two  months  we  meet  the  freezing  point  at  the  depth  of 
two  meters.  My  own  experience  in  that  region  gave  still  less  favorable  results. 
While  digging  on  June  11  on  the  bank  of  Kulki  River,  a  tributary  of  Tighil  River, 
not  far  from  the  village  Tighil,  I  met  frozen  soil  at  the  depth  of  one  foot  and  down. 
According  to  Vlasov  only  at  the  depth  of  more  than  1  meter  (3.28  feet)  is  the  soil 
in  Tighil  frozen  in  that  month. 

SOMATOLOGY 

The  present  Kamchadal  have  become  mixed  with  Russian  settlers  and  many 
have  lost  their  former  Koryak-like  appearance,  even  in  places  where  officially  no 
Russians  are  recorded.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  southern 
villages,  Yavino  and  Golyghino,  who  in  former  times  might  have  been  physically 
influenced  by  the  Kurilians  (i.  e.,  the  Northern  Ainos).  The  Kurilians  had  inter¬ 
course  with  the  Southern  Kamchadal,  and  some  Kurilians  had  settlements  on  the 
southern  extremity  of  the  Kamchatka  Peninsula. 

The  measurements  of  Kamchadal  taken  by  Mrs.  Jochelson  show  that  the 
Russian  metisation  influenced  very  little  the  physical  character  of  the  Kamchadal. 
158  men  and  170  women  were  measured.  The  following  table  gives  some  of  the 
measurements  and  indices. 


20 


Archaeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


Men 

Women 

Average 

Stand. 

dev. 

Average 

Stand. 

dev. 

Stature . 

1,597  mm. 

5.4 

1,495  mm. 

4.6 

Length  of  head . 

188  mm. 

6.8 

183  mm. 

5.7 

Width  of  head . 

149  mm. 

5.7 

144  mm. 

4.8 

Cephalic  index . 

78.9 

2.9 

78.5 

2.7 

Width  of  face . 

144  mm. 

5.7 

137  mm. 

4.3 

Cephalic  facial  index . 

96.5 

3.3 

94.9 

3.0 

The  Kamchadal,  prior  to  embracing  Christianity,  threw  away  their  dead  to 
be  devoured  by  dogs,  and  therefore  no  skeletal  remains  were  found  while  excavat¬ 
ing  prehistoric  sites.  Only  in  one  pit  on  the  mouth  of  the  River  Kavran  were 
prehistoric  human  bones  discovered,  and  among  them  were  two  skulls  in  good  condi¬ 
tion  for  measurement.1  One  of  the  skulls  seemed  to  be  that  of  a  woman,  the  other 
of  a  man.  The  length  of  skulls  was  177  mm.  and  188  mm.,  the  width  136  mm. 
and  143  mm.  and  consequently  the  indices  76.9  mm.  and  77.9  mm.  According  to 
Broca  2  units  may  be  added  to  the  cephalic  index  of  skulls  to  obtain  the  cephalic 
of  the  living.  Adding  2  units  to  76.9  and  77.9  mm.  we  have  78.9  mm.  and  79.9 
mm.,  figures  nearly  equal  to  averages  of  the  cephalic  index  of  the  present-day 
Kamchadal. 

Plate  1  shows  photographs  of  Kamchadal  men,  women  and  young  girls. 
Plate  2,  figure  1,  represents  elders  of  some  villages  of  the  western  shore  of  Kam¬ 
chatka. 

SANITARY  CONDITIONS  AMONG  THE  KAMCHADAL 

The  Russian  conquerors  have  exercised  a  disintegrating  influence  on  the 
family  life  of  the  Kamchadal.  Among  the  Kamchadal,  unchastity  has  been  more 
or  less  common  in  the  case  of  girls  before  marriage  and  of  women  after  marriage. 
The  Russians  made  liberal  use  of  this  custom  and  in  this  manner  syphilis  brought 
by  them  was  widespread  among  the  Kamchadal.  This  contagious  illness  resulted 
in  different  inherited  diseases.  In  twenty-six  villages  of  the  western  coast  of 
Kamchatka,  out  of  a  population  numbering  2,500,  250  people  (i.e.,  10  per  cent) 
were,  according  to  my  census  in  1911,  cripples  (blind,  deaf-mute,  humpbacked, 
lame  persons  and  so  forth) ;  particularly  were  there  many  blind  people,  an  average 
of  1  per  cent,  and  half  of  the  population  was  suffering  from  eye  diseases.  Plate  2, 
figure  2,  shows  a  photograph  of  11  blind  men  and  women  of  the  village  Kharyusovo, 
which  has  200  inhabitants;  i.  e.,  5.5  per  cent  of  the  population  are  blind. 

These  observations  refer  to  the  year  1911  and  it  would  be  fair  to  relate  obser¬ 
vations  of  later  years. 

Dr.  Shirokogoroff,2  basing  his  statement  on  a  recent  (1919-1920)  medico- 
statistical  survey  by  Dr.  Puxov  who  put  his  material  at  his  disposal,  says  that  some 

xOne  skull  was  discovered  on  the  Kuril  Lake  (see  p.  62),  but  it  was  not  in  good  condition  for  measurements. 

2  S.  Shirokogoroff,  Northern  Tungus  Migrations  in  the  Far-East,  The  Journal,  North  China  Branch,  Royal  Asiatic 
Society,  vol.  lvii,  1926,  p.  174. 


The  Country  and  Somatology  of  the  Kamchadal 


21 


groups  in  Kamchatka  after  being  exposed  to  syphilis,  alcoholism,  tuberculosis 
and  other  consequences  of  Russian  influence,  show  a  marked  increase  over  the 
former  number.  But  these  general  observations  are  not  corroborated  by  statis¬ 
tical  figures. 

The  well-known  investigator  of  Siberia,  Patkanoff  /  has  shown  that  the  groups 
which  had  adopted  a  higher  system  of  economical  organization  (cattle  breeding, 
agriculture,  etc.)  show  a  marked  increase  in  population.  But  these  groups  do  not 
include  the  Kamchadal.  On  the  other  hand  the  latest  investigators  of  Kamchatka, 
the  Swedish  traveler  Bergman2  and  the  Russian  Gapanovich,3  attest  the  same  state 
of  affairs  as  pictured  by  the  author.  Only  the  infusion  of  fresh  blood  may  save 
the  Kamchadal  from  extinction.  And  the  Kamchadal  are  conscious  of  it.  I 
remember  that  some  Russian  adventurers  coming  from  Vladivostok  after  the 
Russian- Japanese  War  were  welcomed  and  adopted  by  the  villagers  of  the  western 
coast  of  Kamchatka,  and  the  hunting  rights  of  their  territory  were  extended  to 
them,  provided  they  settle  there. 

1  S.  A.  Patkanoff,  On  the  Increase  of  the  non-Russian  Population  in  Siberia,  published  by  the  Imper.  Russian  Academy 
of  Sciences,  St.  Petersburg,  1911  (in  Russian). 

2  Sten  Bergman,  Vulcane,  Bdren  und  Nomaden — Reisen  und  Erlebnisse  im  wilden  Kamtschatka,  Stuttgart,  1920, 
Chapter:  “Durch  sterbende  Dorfer  langs  der  Kuste  des  Ochotskischen  Meeres,”  pp.  177-180.  German  translation  from  the 
Swedish. 

3 1.  I.  Gapanovich,  The  Native  Population  of  Kamchatka,  North  Asia,  Jour.  Social  Science,  Moscow,  1925,  No. 
5,  pp.  40-62  (in  Russian). 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  STONE  AGE  IN  SIBERIA  AND  ADJACENT  COUNTRIES 

Before  describing  the  excavations  in  Kamchatka  a  brief  survey  of  the  Stone 
Age  in  Siberia  and  adjacent  countries  will  be  given.  Various  discoveries  concern¬ 
ing  the  palseolithic  and  the  neolithic  periods  were  made  by  Russian  explorers 
in  Siberia,  but  the  archaeological  work  in  Siberia  is  still  in  its  initial  stage.  Par¬ 
ticularly,  this  may  be  said  of  the  palseolithic.  While  some  of  the  sites  alleged  to  be 
palseolithic  may  be  subject  to  doubt  as  to  their  antiquity,  there  may  be  palseolithic 
stations  not  yet  discovered. 

THE  SIBERIAN  PAL^EOLITH 

Professor  Kastchenko,  when  excavating  near  Tomsk  in  1896,  discovered 
bones  of  a  young  mammoth,  which  had  been  killed  and  eaten  by  palseolithic 
hunters.  There  were  found  ashes,  charcoal,  fragments  of  stone  knives  and  burnt 
leg-bones  of  the  mammoth,  which  were  split  for  the  marrow.  Professor  Kastchenko1 
is  a  zoologist  and  showed  little  interest  in  archseological  objects  which  accompanied 
his  find.  The  implements  were  not  described  and  classified.  They  are  illustrated 
by  a  photograph  and  not  by  drawings,  so  one  can  not  get  a  clear  idea  of  their 
characters.  No  traces  of  the  man  himself  were  discovered. 

Another  palseolithic  site  was  discovered  in  1884  on  the  slope  of  the  Afontova 
Mountain  near  Krasnoyarsk  by  the  Siberian  scientist,  I.  T.  Savenkov.  He  col¬ 
lected  a  great  number  of  implements  which  were  deposited  in  the  Museum  of 
Anthropology  and  Ethnography  of  the  Academy  of  Sciences  in  Petrograd  and  are 
still  not  described.  In  1914  the  Russian  Academy  of  Sciences  commissioned  him 
to  continue  his  excavations  near  Krasnoyarsk,  but  he  died  before  finishing  his 
work.2  Professor  B.  E.  Petri  is  inclined  to  regard  Savenkov’s  collection  as  repre¬ 
senting  two  cultures — the  palseolithic  and  neolithic.  Only  typologically  palseolithic 
specimens  may  be  picked  out  from  the  collection. 

From  1919  Savenkov’s  work  was  continued  by  G.  P.  Sosnovsky,  G.  von  Mer- 
hart3  and  others.  Von  Merhart  is  a  German  scientist  who  spent  some  time  in 
Siberia  as  a  war  prisoner.  The  archseologists  mentioned  carried  on  Savenkov’s 

1  N.  F.  Kastchenko,  Remnants  of  a  Mammoth  found  near  Tomsk,  Bull.  Russian  Academy  of  Sciences,  1896,  vol,  v, 
No.  1,  p.  31  (in  Russian);  The  Skeleton  of  a  Mammoth  with  Traces  of  being  used  as  Food  of  some  Parts  of  its  Body  by  Contem¬ 
poraneous  Man,  Memoirs  Russian  Academy  of  Sciences,  Series  VIII,  vol.  xi,  No.  1,  1901  (in  Russian);  Ein  von  Menschen 
verzehrtes  Mammuth,  Correspondenz  Blatt  der  Deutschen  Gesellschaft  fur  Anthropologie,  Ethnologie  und  Urgeschichte, 
1896,  p.  45. 

2  Savenkov  published  some  brief  reports  on  his  excavations  near  Krasnoyarsk,  which  contain  more  geological  than 
archseological  data.  He  was  a  geologist  by  profession.  These  reports  are:  (1)  On  the  Palseolithic  Epoch  in  the  Environs  of 
Krasnoyarsk,  a  supplement  to  the  Report  of  the  Society  of  Medical  Men  of  the  Yeniseisk  Province  of  1892  (in  Russian). 
(2)  On  the  Vestiges  left  on  the  Banks  of  the  Yenisei  by  Man  contemporary  with  the  Mammoth,  Report  of  the  General  Meeting  of 
the  Society  of  Naturalists  at  the  University  of  Warsaw,  year  vn,  p.  7,  1896  (in  Russian).  (3)  Sur  les  Rests  de  I’epoque  paUo- 
lithique  dans  les  Environs  de  Kranoyarsk,  Congres  international  d’archeologie  pr6historique  et  d’anthropologie,  onzieme 
session  a  Moscou,  vol.  i,  Moscou,  1892. 

3  G.  von  Merhart,  The  Palseolithic  Period  in  Siberia;  Contribution  to  the  Prehistory  of  the  Yenisei  Region,  American 
Anthropologist,  vol.  25,  1923,  pp.  21-55. 


23 


24 


Archaeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


investigations.  They  made  excavations  in  the  Yenisei  Valley  to  the  south  of 
Krasnoyarks  and  discovered  microlithic  artifacts  characterizing  the  end  of  the 
palseolithic  period.  However,  on  the  same  level  were  found  artifacts  which  may 
belong  to  one  of  the  epochs  of  the  lower  as  well  as  of  the  upper  palseolithic  period, 
and  Merhard  for  the  present  limits  himself  by  designating  the  Old  Stone-Age 
culture  of  the  Yenisei  as  belonging  to  the  upper  palseolithic  stage  with  a  Siberian 
facies. 

At  a  distance  of  330  miles  from  Krasnoyarsk  to  Minusinsk,  twenty  alleged 
palseolithic  stations  are  at  present  counted  in  the  Yenisei  Valley,  twelve  of  which 
are  undoubtedly  palseolithic. 

One  palseolithic  station  was  reported  from  the  Ob  region.  M.  D.  Kopy  toff 
discovered  a  palseolithic  stratum  in  1911  in  the  village  of  Fominskoye,  13.2 
miles  from  the  city  of  Biisk,  to  the  southwest  of  it,  at  the  confluence  of  the  Bii  and 
Katun  Rivers,  on  a  high  terrace  of  an  ancient  river  sediment.  The  specimens 
collected  are  now  in  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History  in  New  York,  to 
which  Mr.  Kopytoff  forwarded  them. 

In  the  Angara  Valley,  palseolithic  finds  were  made  in  1871  by  I.  D.  Chersky1 
and  A.  Chekanovsky,2  but  the  artifacts  discovered  by  them  are  now  missing. 
They  were  probably  lost  in  the  fire  of  1879,  which  destroyed  the  Museum  of  the 
Geographical  Society  in  Irkutsk,  where  the  specimens  were  deposited.  M.  P. 
Ovchinnikov3  found  in  the  environs  of  Irkutsk  many  specimens  of  palseolithic  cul¬ 
ture,  which  are  on  exhibition  in  the  Museum  of  Irkutsk. 

Professor  B.  E.  Petri4  recently  made  excavations  on  the  Verkholensk  Mountain 
near  Irkutsk  and  discovered  typical  stations  on  the  loess  belonging  to  the  upper 
palseolithic  epoch.  He  is  convinced  they  are  related  to  the  Magdalenian,  but 
with  many  special  characteristics.  Among  the  numerous  artifacts  of  stone,  bone, 
horn  and  tusks  found  in  Siberian  palseolithic  stations,  ornamentation  is  almost 
lacking  on  the  objects,  except  plain  lines  engraved  on  one  artifact  made  of  horn. 
This  lack  of  works  of  art  may  bear  witness  to  a  less  artistic  skill  of  the  palseolithic 
dwellers  of  Siberia  as  compared  with  their  companions  of  the  far  west,  who  left 
us  nice  patterns  of  sculpture  and  painting,  to  mention  only  the  wall  engravings 
and  drawings  of  the  Aurignacian  Epoch  and  the  bone  carvings  and  mural  paintings 
of  the  Magdalenians  in  representing  man  and  animal  forms.  There  were  found, 
in  fact,  on  the  Verkholensk  Mountain  such  materials  for  painting  as  graphite, 
hematite  and  lime,  but  no  traces  of  their  use  were  seen.  The  culture  of  the  Verk¬ 
holensk  Mountain  revealed,  speaking  in  chronological  terms  of  West-European 
archseology,  a  mixture  of  Aurignacian  and  Mousterian  scrapers,  of  laurel  leaf -like 
stone  blades  typical  for  the  Solutrean  period,  and  of  nicely  made  harpoons  of  the 
Magdalenian  period.  This  diversity  of  forms  belonging  to  different  stages  of 

1 1.  D.  Chersky,  A  Few  Words  on  the  Excavated  Artifacts  of  the  Stone  Age  near  Irkutsk,  Bull.  Siberian  Division  Russian 
Geographical  Society,  vol.  in,  No.  3,  pp.  167-172  (in  Russian). 

2  A.  Chekanovsky,  A  Brief  Account  on  the  Results  of  the  Investigations  during  the  Summer  1871,  Bull.  Siberian  Division 
Russian  Geographical  Society,  vol.  i,  No.  5,  pp.  37-38  (in  Russian). 

3  M.  P.  Ovchinnikov,  Materials  for  the  Study  of  Remains  of  Ancient  Sites  in  the  Environs  of  Irkutsk,  Bull.  East  Siberian 
Division  Russian  Geograph.  Society,  vol.  xxxv,  No.  3,  pp.  62-76  (in  Russian). 

4  See  Professor  B.  E.  Petri,  The  Siberian  Palseolith,  Irkutsk,  1923;  The  First  Traces  of  the  Pre-Historic  Man  in  Siberia, 
Chita,  1922. 


The  Stone  Age  in  Siberia  and  Adjacent  Countries 


25 


culture  and  occurring  together  appears  to  reveal  a  specific  peculiarity  of  the 
Siberian  palseolith,  as  the  mixture  of  ancient  and  newer  styles  clearly  comes  forth 
in  the  excavations  of  many  investigators.  While  Siberian  palaeolithic  sites  have 
yielded  samples  of  human  artifacts,  no  skeletal  remains  of  the  palseolothic  man 
have  been  discovered  in  Siberia  as  yet.1 

The  palaeolithic  man  of  Siberia  knew  the  art  of  fire-making,  produced  stone 
and  later  bone  implements.  Palaeolithic  sites  on  which  bone  artifacts  were  found 
may  be  regarded  as  stations  of  the  late  palaeolithic  period. 

In  summing  up  the  data  on  hand  on  the  Siberian  palaeolithic  sites  we  may  state 
that  they  are  concentrated  in  southwestern  Siberia,  namely,  in  the  valley  of  the 
upper  course  of  the  Ob  River,  in  the  upper  course  of  the  Yenisei  River  and  on  the 
banks  of  its  tributary,  the  Angara  River.  (See  map  showing  stations  of  the  Stone 
and  Metal  Ages  in  Siberia.) 

PALEOLITHIC  REMAINS  IN  INNER  MONGOLIA 

The  French  Jesuit  explorers  and  archaeologists,  Teilhard  de  Chardin  and  F. 
Licent,2  have  recently  reported  the  discovery  of  four  palaeolithic  sites  in  Inner 
Mongolia.  They  think  that  almost  everywhere  in  the  loess  of  China  similar 
palaeolithic  sites  may  be  easily  found.  But  the  worker  himself  of  the  palaeolithic 
implements,  the  Old  Man  of  China,  is  still  to  be  discovered. 

A  little  to  the  north  of  the  region  where  the  Jesuit  explorers,  Pere  Licent  and 
Abbe  Teilhard  de  Chardin,  were  working  on  a  gravel  plain  just  above  and  behind 
the  Little  White  Lake,  N.  C.  Nelson,  according  to  R.  C.  Andrews,3  discovered 
old  stone  age  implements.  They  were  hammer-stones  and  scrapers,  crudely 
shaped  but  definite  in  design  and  of  the  type  known  in  Europe  as  Mousterian, 
contemporary  with  Neanderthal  man.  In  a  chapter  on  “the  Dune  Dwellers  of 
Mongolia”  Dr.  Andrews  refers  to  a  site  at  Shabarakh  Usu,  at  which  remains  of 
a  late  palaeolithic  culture  were  discovered.  Above  this  layer  was  a  transition 
stage,  resembling  the  Azilian  of  western  Europe,  which  gradually  developed  into 
the  neolot  hie  age.  Stone  points  for  arrows  and  spears  and  crude  pottery  char¬ 
acterized  the  upper  layer.  As  we  shall  see  later  on,  Nelson  himself  is  not  so 
positive  of  the  finds  indicated  above  as  of  artifacts  of  the  palaeolithic  man. 

THE  SIBERIAN  NEOLITH 

As  has  been  stated  by  archaeologists  of  Western  Europe,  neolithic  levels  are 
often  separated  from  the  palaeolithic  by  the  intercalation  of  a  sterile  bed,  indicating 

1  In  Western  Europe  skeletal  remains  of  the  palaeolithic  man  were  found  in  numerous  palaeolithic  sites  of  different 
epochs. 

2  See  Teilhard  de  Chardin  and  F.  Licent,  On  the  Discovery  of  a  Palxolithic  Industry  in  Northern  China,  Bull,  of 
the  Geological  Society  of  China,  vol.  in,  No.  1,  Peking,  1924,  pp.  45-50. 

- On  the  Geology  of  the  Northern,  Western,  and  Southern  Borders  of  the  Ordos,  China,  Bull,  of  the  Geological 

Survey  of  China,  vol.  3,  No.  1,  Peking,  1924,  pp.  37-44. 

One  of  these  authors,  the  Rev.  Emile  Licent,  had  published  a  comprehensive  work  under  the  title:  Dix  Annees  (1914~ 
1928)  dans  le  Bassin  du  Fleuve  Jaune  et  autres  Tributaires  du  Golfe  du  Pei-Tcheuly,  3  vols.  text,  1  vol.  tables;  an  atlas 
of  154  sheets.  Published  by  the  Librairie  Francaise,  Tientsin,  1924.  In  this  work  Pere  Licent  refers  to  some  finds  of 
Neolithic  remains  and  fragments  of  skulls  of  little  significance,  but  the  main  interest  centers  about  certain  palaeolithic  remains 
belonging  to  the  Mousterian  epoch.  Worked  flints  of  Mousterian  type  were  discovered  at  several  different  places,  but  in 
greatest  abundance  near  the  Great  Wall  of  China  about  Choei-tong-keou. 

3  Roy  Chapman  Andrews,  On  the  Trail  of  Ancient  Man,  New  York-London,  1926,  pp.  309  and  276. 


26 


Archeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


a  more  or  less  lengthy  period  without  occupation.  We  have  seen  before  the  dual 
character  of  some  stone  age  stations  in  Siberia,  thus  indicating  a  certain  con¬ 
tinuity  in  the  transition  from  the  old  to  the  new  stone  period.1  It  remains,- 
however,  for  future  investigators  to  solve  the  question  whether  the  Siberian  neolith 
in  general  shows  a  new  order  of  things  and  the  arrival  of  peoples  with  different 
industries  and  customs  from  those  of  the  last  palaeolithic  peoples.  Leaving  this 
question  open  we  shall  enumerate  those  neolithic  stations  in  Siberia  which  are 
known  at  present.  Neolithic  sites  are  more  numerous  than  the  palaeolithic. 
They  are  scattered  all  over  Siberia,  from  the  Ural  Mountains  to  the  Pacific  coast. 
The  following  neolithic  sites  are  known : 

A  neolithic  station  near  the  village  Samarovskoye  (60°  N.  lat.)  in  the  Beresov  district  of  the 
Tobolsk  Province  is  mentioned  by  Count  Uvaroff.2 

In  extreme,  northwestern  Siberia  the  following  neolithic  stations  became  known. 

Neohthic  remains  on  the  bank  of  the  Sosva  River,  tributary  of  Ob  at  63°  N.  lat.,  were  dis¬ 
covered  by  Professor  S.  I.  Rudenko.3 

Finds  of  neohthic  stone  implements  in  the  mouth  of  the  River  Ob  are  mentioned  by  Poliakoff.4 

Neohthic  artifacts  were  discovered  still  farther  north  of  the  Ob  River  on  the  Stchutchya  River, 
not  far  from  the  Kara  Sea  (about  65°  N.  lat.). 

Novitzky5  discovered  a  neohthic  site  in  the  delta  of  the  Ob  River,  and  Count  Uvaroff  men¬ 
tions  a  neohthic  station  near  the  village  Obdorsk  (67°  N.  lat.)6 

The  most  northern  neohthic  station  in  Siberia  as  yet  discovered  is  the  locality  of  the  village 
Dudinskoye  on  the  Yenisei  River,  not  far  from  its  mouth  (69°  N.  lat.).7 

Neohthic  stations  were  also  reported  from  southwestern  Siberia.  Several  neohthic  sites 
were  found  on  the  shores  of  the  Transuralian  lakes  and  between  the  eastern  slope  of  the  Ural  Ridge 
and  the  middle  course  of  the  Ob  River  and  its  tributaries. 

In  the  southern  part  of  the  Province  Tobolsk,  on  the  Andreyevsky  Lake,  near  Tyumen  inter¬ 
esting  village  sites  of  neohthic  man  were  discovered  in  1885  by  Slovtzoff.8  According  to  the  exami¬ 
nations  of  this  investigator  the  Andreyevsky  Lake  must  be  regarded  as  the  remains  of  a  vast 
fresh-water  basin  on  the  shores  of  which  neohthic  man  lived  in  small  settlements  surrounded  by 
walls  and  trenches.  He  was  fishing  and  hunting  and  left  behind  rich  remnants  of  neohthic  cera¬ 
mics  and  polished  stone  implement. 

There  were  discovered  neohthic  sites  on  the  banks  of  the  rivers  Tobol  and  Ishim,  both  tribu¬ 
taries  of  the  Ob  River. 

Mr.  Kopytoff,  mentioned  before,  discovered  in  1912  two  neohthic  stations  in  the  headwater 
district  of  the  Ob  River,  one  17  miles  from  Biisk  and  another  2  miles  lower.  Artifacts  found  in 
these  stations  are  in  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  New  York. 

In  southern  Siberia  neohthic  stations  are  known  as  far  south  as  the  boundaries  of  Mongolia. 

Neohthic  finds  in  Minusinsk  on  the  upper  course  of  the  Yenisei  River  were  reported  by  Saven- 
koff,  Peredolsky  and  Teploukhov,9  and  in  Kansk  a  district  town  of  the  province  of  Yeniseisk  located 

1  It  would  not  be  superfluous  to  note  that  when  a  site  yields  typologically  mixed  artifacts  in  one  horizon  we  have  to 
range  ourselves  chronologically  with  the  objects  of  the  later  period,  as  very  often  old-fashioned  objects  continue  to  be  used 
or  even  manufactured  after  the  adaptation  to  a  new  order  of  things.  The  author  found  in  use  the  most  primitive  stone 
implements  by  Siberian  natives,  who  have  used  or  even  manufactured  metal  objects  for  a  long  time.  Likewise  when  we 
find  a  treasure  of  coins  of  different  periods  in  one  place  we  must  refer  the  date  of  the  deposit  to  the  time  of  the  circulation 
of  the  newest  coins. 

2  A.  C.  Uvaroff,  The  Archseology  of  Russia,  vol.  n,  p.  104,  1881  (in  Russian). 

3  Professor  B.  E.  Petri,  The  Siberian  Neolith,  p.  31  (in  Russian). 

4  I.  S.  Poliakoff,  Report  of  the  Siberian  Division  of  the  Imperial  Russian  Geographical  Society  for  the  year  1868  (in 
Russian) . 

6  W.  M.  Novitzky,  The  Dune  Sites  in  the  Delta  of  the  Ob  River,  Memoirs  Society  Natural  History  of  Kasan  University, 
vol.  xlix,  part  1  (in  Russian). 

6  Count  A.  C.  Uvaroff,  The  Archseology  oj  Russia,  vol.  i,  The  Stone  Age,  1881  (in  Russian). 

7  See  Petri,  The  Siberian  Neolith,  Irkutsk,  1926,  p.  31  (in  Russian). 

8  J.  G.  Slovtzoff,  The  Finds  of  Objects  of  the  Stone  Age  near  the  City  of  Tyumen,  Memoirs  West-Siberian  Division  Rus¬ 
sian  Geographical  Society,  vol.  vn,  part  I,  pp.  1-69  (in  Russian). 

9  J.  T.  Savenkov,  The  Stone  Age  on  the  Country  of  Minusinsk,  Moscow,  1897  (in  Russian).  See  also  Baron  de  Baye, 
Rapport  sur  les  decouvertes  faites  par  M.  Savenkoff  dans  la  Siberie  Orientate,  Lecture  k  L’Academie  des  Sciences,  Paris,  1894. 

V.  V.  Peredolsky,  On  the  River  Yenisei  and  its  Tributaries,  Bull.  Russian  Geographical  Society,  Petersburg,  vol. 
xxxix,  part  in,  pp.  210-214  (in  Russian). 

S.  A.  Teploukhov,  An  Account  on  Excavations  of  Neolithic  Burial-places  in  the  Valley  of  the  River  Yenisei  in  1920  and 
1921,  The  Geographic  Messenger,  1922,  vol.  i,  p.  21  (in  Russian). 


The  Stone  Age  in  Siberia  and  Adjacent  Countries 


27 


on  the  Kansk  River,  a  tributary  of  the  Yenisei,  by  Yermolayeff.1  But  in  general  the  Yenisei  River 
valley  yielded  as  yet  very  few  artifacts  of  the  Stone  Age. 

Richer  in  neolithic  specimens  is  the  valley  of  the  Angara  River,  tributary  of  the  Yenisei. 
The  Angara  country  is  mentioned  by  Ovchinnikoff  and  Sosnovsky. 

In  the  environs  of  the  city  of  Irkutsk  neolithic  finds  were  discovered  by  many  investigators: 
Ovchinnikoff,  Petri,  Vitkovsky,  Yeleneff  and  others.2 

Neolithic  sites  were  discovered  in  the  village  Yershi,  10  miles  from  Irkutsk, 
and  near  the  village  Rasputino  in  the  Balagansk  District  of  the  province  Irkutsk. 

In  the  province  of  Irkutsk,  Vitkovsky  has  excavated  neolithic  relics  of  an 
archaic  character,  finding  human  skeletons  covered  with  red  ochre,  like  those  of 
the  reindeer  age  in  Europe.3 

The  alleged  palaeolithic  sites  discovered  by  N.  N.  Agapitoff  in  the  valley  of  the 
Unga  River  (in  the  Balagansk  District  of  the  Irkutsk  Province)  and  by  A.  J. 
Linkov  in  the  village  Stchukino  near  Irkutsk  appeared  to  be  neolithic  stations, 
after  further  careful  investigations.4 

To  the  northeast  of  Irkutsk,  Professor  Kozmin  discovered  a  neolithic  site  in 
the  Kirensk  District  of  the  Irkutsk  Province  on  the  Small  Patom  River,  a  tributary 
of  Lena.5  Ovchinnikoff  discovered  a  neolithic  site  on  the  banks  of  the  Olekma 
River,  a  tributary  of  the  Lena. 

In  the  region  of  the  Baikal  Lake  several  very  interesting  excavations  were 
made.  The  most  important  is  the  discovery  by  Professor  Petri  of  neolithic  sites 
in  the  Pestchana  Bay  of  the  Baikal  Lake,  and  particularly  the  site  Ulan-Khad 
situated  on  the  shore  of  a  little  cove  in  the  Mukhor  Bay.  The  cove  is  surrounded 
by  high  rocky  mountains  from  the  south,  west  and  east,  and  only  the  northern 
winds  bring  gravel  and  sand  from  weathered  summits  around  the  lake.  Checked 
by  the  rock  in  the  back  of  the  bay  the  sand  was  deposited  on  the  shore  in  hori¬ 
zontal  layers,  about  10  meters  high.  Cultural  remains  were  found  in  eleven 
layers  to  the  depth  of  4  meters. 

Under  the  eleventh  layer  no  traces  of  man’s  activities  were  discovered.  The 
same  refers  to  the  upper  layers,  0.9  meters  thick,  which  were  without  cultural 
remains.  Thus  the  layers  containing  cultural  remains  formed1  a  deposit  2.95 
meters  thick.  The  tenth  and  eleventh  layers  were  difficult  to  dig  on  account  of 
the  ever  frozen  soil.  The  site  yielded  innumerable  specimens  of  neolithic  culture. 

1  A.  K.  Yermolayeff,  To  the  Archaeology  of  the  Environs  of  Kansk,  Siberian  Archives,  1912,  No.  4,  pp.  237-243  (in 
Russian). 

2  N.  1.  Vitkovsky,  Report  on  Excavations  of  Burial  Places  of  the  Stone  Age  on  the  Left  Bank  of  the  Angara  River  in  the 
Province  of  Irkutsk,  made  in  the  summer  of  1881,  Bull.  East-Siberian  Division  Imperial  Russian  Geographical  Society,  vol. 
xiii,  No.  I— 2,  pp.  1-36. 

M.  P.  Ovchinnikoff,  The  Diary  of  N.  L.  Vitkovsky  Written  While  Traveling  onthe  Angara,  Siberian  Archives,  1912,  No.  10. 

I.  P.  Sosnovsky,  The  Prehistoric  Remains  of  the  Village  Rasputino  on  the  Angara,  Irkutsk,  1924,  publication  Irkutsk 
Scientific  Museum. 

M.  P.  Ovchinnikoff,  Materials  for  the  Study  of  Ancient  Remains  in  the  Environs  of  Irkutsk,  Bull.  East-Siberian  Division 
Russian  Geographical  Society,  1904,  vol.  xxxv,  No.  3. 

N.  I.  Vitkovsky,  The  Results  of  Excavations  of  Ancient  Burial  Places  of  the  Stone  Age,  Bull.  East-Siberian  Division 
Geographical  Section,  1880,  vol.  xn,  No.  1,  p.  6. 

A.  Yelenev,  A  Note  on  the  Archaeology  of  the  Environs  of  Irkutsk,  Bull.  East-Siberian  Division  Russian  Geographical 
Society,  1894,  vol.  xxv,  No.  1. 

B.  E.  Petri,  Neolithic  Finds  on  the  Shores  of  the  Baikal  Lake,  Memoir  of  the  Museum  for  Anthrop.  and  Ethnogr., 
Acad,  of  Sciences,  1916,  vol.  3.  All  these  papers  are  in  Russian. 

3  M.  Boule,  Fossil  Men:  Elements  of  Human  Palaeontology,  Translated  from  the  French,  London,  1923,  p.  355. 

4  See  Petri,  The  First  Traces  of  the  Prehistoric  Man  in  Siberia,  Chita,  1922,  p.  2  (in  Russian). 

5  N.  M.  Kozmin,  Remains  of  the  Stone  Age  in  the  Valley  of  the  Small  Pato?n  River,  Bull.  East-Siberian  Division  of 
Russian  Geographical  Society,  vol.  xxix,  Part  1  (in  Russian). 


28 


Archaeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


Many  generations  of  neolithic  man  lived  there  during  a  long  period  of  time.  The 
lower  layer,  the  eleventh,  contained  only  stone-chips,  blades  nuclei,  scrapers  and 
fish-hooks.  No  objects  of  bone  and  wood,  the  manufacture  of  which  was  undoubt¬ 
edly  richly  developed,  were  found,  as  sand  is  not  a  medium  to  preserve  such 
material  from  decay.  Except  for  some  charred  pieces,  bone  was  not  preserved, 
even  in  the  upper  layers. 

The  eleventh  layer  did  not  contain,  however,  either  pottery  remains  or  polished 
stone  implements  and  therefore  may  be  regarded  as  a  transitional  layer  from  the 
palseolithic  to  the  neohthic  period.  Pottery  begins  with  the  tenth  layer,  repre¬ 
senting  crude  clay  vessels,  conical  in  shape  and  with  traces  of  basketwork  on  the 
walls  or  of  application  of  stamps.  The  pottery  technique,  concerning  bring  and 
decoration,  became  perfected  with  every  layer,  and  the  polishing  of  stone  implements 
became  more  accomplished.  In  the  first  layer  polished  adzes  of  nephrite  were  met. 
Generally  the  upper  layer  seems  to  approach  the  bronze  epoch,  although  no 
bronze  artifacts  were  found  here.  Thus  we  see  in  the  scope  of  eleven  layers  a 
range  of  neolithic  stages,  beginning  with  the  stage  without  ceramics  and  ending 
with  a  transitional  stage  to  the  bronze  epoch.1  In  the  Olkhon  country  and  on  the 
Olkhon  Island  in  the  Baikal  Lake,  neohthic  sites  were  discovered  by  Khoroshikh.2 
Dr.  Talko-Hryncewicz  discovered  neolithic  sites  in  the  western  Transbaikalia.3 

Farther  to  the  east  neolithic  relics  were  discovered  on  the  dunes  of  the  banks 
of  the  River  Patkha  where  it  flows  into  the  Amur. 

Dr.  Shirokogoroff4  had  found  several  neolithic  deposits  along  the  banks  of 
the  Amur  River  in  its  lower  course,  to  the  north  and  northeast.  In  the  Amur 
Bay,  Okhotsk  Sea,  neolithic  sites  and  kitchen  middens  were  discovered  by  Mar- 
garitoff  and  Yankovsky.6 

SOME  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  SIBERIAN  NE0LITH 

Some  characteristics  of  the  Siberian  neolith  which  follow  are  based  on  Siberian 
authorities,  chiefly  the  writings  of  Professor  Petri. 

The  Siberian  palseolithic  stations,  as  we  have  seen  before,  are  not  numerous 
and  are  little  studied  as  yet.6  Finds  belonging  to  the  neolithic  period  in  Siberia 
are  much  richer.  While  the  upper  palseolithic  remains  may  be  referred  to  the 

1  B.  E.  Petri,  Report  on  a  Voyage  to  the  Baikal  Lake  in  the  summer  of  1916,  in  Report  of  Russian  Academy  of  Sciences 
for  1916  (in  Russian). 

- Neolithic  Finds  on  the  Baikal,  A  Preliminary  Report  on  the  Excavations  of  the  Neolithic  Station  Ulan-Khad,  Memoir 

Museum  for  Anthropology  and  Ethnology,  Russian  Academy  of  Sciences,  1916,  vol.  3  (in  Russian). 

- Deuxihme  voyage  en  Cisbaikalie  au  cours  de  L’ete  1913,  Bull,  publie  par  le  Comite  Russe  de  L’Association  Inter¬ 
nationale  pour  l’exploration  historique,  archeologique,  linguistique  et  ethnographique  de  l’Asie  Centrale  et  de  l’Extr6me 
Orient,  Petrograd,  1914,  S§rie  n,  No.  3,  pp.  89-106). 

The  Neolithic  Colony  in  the  Pestchana  Bay  at  the  Baikal,  University  volume  of  the  works  of  the  Professors  and  Lecturers 
at  the  State’s  University  in  Irkutsk,  1921,  part  2,  pp.  56-65  (in  Russian). 

2  P.  P.  Khoroshikh,  The  Investigation  of  the  Stone  and  Metal  Ages  of  the  Irkutsk  Country,  Irkutsk,  1924  (The  Island 
Olkhon)  Bull.  Biologic-Geographical  Institute,  University  Irkutsk,  1924,  vol.  i,  part  1  (in  Russian). 

3  See  J.  D.  Talko-Hryncewicz,  The  Ancient  Inhabitants  of  Asia,  Russian  Anthropological  Journal,  Moscow,  1900, 
No.  2  (in  Russian). 

4  S.  M.  Shirokogoroff,  Anthropology  of  Northern  China,  Royal  Asiatic  Society,  North  China  Branch.  Extra  vol.  II, 
Shanghai,  1923,  p.  8. 

6  V.  Margaritoff,  Kitchen  Refuse  found  on  the  Shore  of  the  Amur,  Pub.  by  Society  for  Study  of  Amur  Country,  Vladi¬ 
vostok,  1889. 

M.  Yankovsky,  Kitchen  Refuse  and  Stone  Implements  found  on  the  Shore  of  the  Amur  Bay,  Bull.  East-Siberian  Division 
Russian  Geographical  Society,  vol.  xn,  No.  2-3,  pp.  92-93  (both  in  Russian). 

6  See  above,  p.  23. 


The  Stone  Age  in  Siberia  and  Adjacent  Countries 


29 


close  of  the  Pleistocene  Period,  the  neolithic  remains  are  found  in  recent  geological 
layers.  The  conditions  of  life  as  concerns  climate,  flora  and  fauna  are  nearly  the 
same  as  at  present.  The  animals  of  the  palaeolithic  period  disappeared  and  the 
neolithic  man  of  Siberia  left  the  restless  life  of  a  nomadic  hunter  and  became  a 
settled  fisher.  All  the  neolithic  sites  were  located  on  river  banks  or  on  the  shores 
of  vast  water  basins,  and  indeed  all  the  reservoirs  of  central  and  southern  Siberia 
have  invariably  preserved  on  their  banks  and  shores  remains  of  neolithic  industry. 
It  may  be  noted  here  that  some  places  like  the  sandy  ground  of  Ulan-Khad1  did 
not  appear  favorable  for  the  preservation  of  wooden  and  bone  objects. 

STONE  INDUSTRY 

The  neolithic  stone  industry  of  Siberia  may  be  characterized  by  the  small 
size  of  its  artifacts,  particularly  of  arrow  heads  and  scrapers.  As  is  known,  the 
mesolithic  industry  in  western  Europe  is  attributed  to  the  so-called  Azilian  or  the 
transitional  epoch  from  the  palaeolithic  to  the  neolithic  period.  On  the  other 
hand  the  neolithic  artifacts  of  Siberia  may  be  distinguished  by  a  perfect  and 
finished  retouching.  Many  of  the  stone  artifacts  are  made  of  flint,  although 

this  material  is  not  abundant  in  Siberia.  The  Siberian  neolithic  workman  had 

« 

often  to  satisfy  himself  with  inferior  stone  material,  chiefly  with  quartzite. 

The  bow  and  arrow  is  the  invention  of  neolithic  culture.  Unfortunately 
the  bow  and  wooden  arrow  shafts  have  not  been  preserved.  The  most  spread-out 
type  of  stone  arrow  points  is  of  a  triangular  form  with  a  somewhat  grooved  base 
for  setting  into  the  shaft.  There  are  also  points  of  lancet-leaf,  willow-leaf  types 
and  of  a  more  slender  lancet-like  form.  Lance  heads  were  as  variable  in  form 
as  arrow  points,  but  of  larger  size.  The  same  may  be  said  of  scrapers;2  awls  and 
drills  were  also  of  different  types  as  to  size,  form  and  hafting.  Knives  were  found 
from  2  cm.  to  8  cm.  in  length.  Some  of  them  were  serrated,  serving  also  as  saws. 

Two  kinds  of  stone  fishing  sinkers  were  found:  grooved  balls  and  natural  flat 
pebbles  with  notches  on  two  sides.  Professor  Petri  sees  in  them  the  proof  of  use 
of  the  seine  by  the  Siberian  neolithics,  but  such  stone  sinkers  might  also  be  used 
for  fishing  hooks,  as  is  the  case  with  the  Aleut3  and  Kamchadal.  Besides  there 
were  found  numerous  stone  hooks  for  fishing  lines,  consisting  of  two  pins  of 
mica-schist  tied  together  like  the  compound  bone  fish-hooks  of  the  Aleut  and  the 
California  Indians.4 

The  Siberian  neolithic  man  also  manufactured  some  large  stone  implements, 
in  the  shape  of  slender  chisels,  wide  gouges,  bent  gouges,  axe-wedges  and  axes 
with  ears.  These  implements  were  fastened  to  wooden  handles  by  means  of 
thongs  or  ropes  made  of  vegetable  fibers.  The  large  stone  implements  were 

1  See  above,  p.  27. 

2  For  a  detailed  classification  of  scrapers  see  Professor  Petri’s  The  Neolithic  Finds  on  the  Shore  of  the  Baikal  Sea, 
Memoirs  Museum  for  Anthropology  and  Ethnography,  Russian  Academy  of  Sciences,  1916,  vol.  3  (in  Russian). 

3  W.  Jochelson,  Archaeological  Investigations  in  the  Aleutian  Islands,  Pub.  No.  367,  Carnegie  Inst.  Wash.,  1925,  p.  66. 

4G.  G.  Heye,  Certain  Artifacts  from  San  Miguel  Island,  California,  Indian  Notes  and  Monographs,  Museum  American 

Indian,  vol.  7,  No.  4,  New  York,  1921,  p.  84,  fig.  10;  and  St.  Bowers,  Fish-hooks  from  Southern  California,  Science,  Cambridge, 
Massachusetts,  1883,  p.  575. 


30 


Archeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


intended  for  work  on  wood  and  to  dig  canoes1  out  of  tree  trunks.  Although  no 
remains  of  neolithic  boats  have  been  discovered  in  Siberia  as  yet,  as  neolithic  dug- 
outs  were  discovered  in  western  Europe  and  European  Russia  we  may  conclude 
that  the  Siberian  neolithic  man  used  the  same  or  similar  means  of  navigation  in 
the  waters  on  the  banks  and  shores  of  which  he  lived.  Some  of  the  large  stone 
axes  served  as  weapons  in  war  and  hunting. 

The  absence  of  perforated  stone-axes,  which  were  manufactured  in  the  neo¬ 
lithic  period  in  Western  Europe  and  European  Russia  is  particularly  characteristic 
of  the  Siberian  neolith.  This  fact  is  very  difficult  to  explain,  as  the  Siberian  neo¬ 
lithic  man  was  well  acquainted  with  the  art  of  drilling.  It  is  true  that  while  the 
western  neolithic  man  used  the  so-called  cylindrical  drill,  his  Siberian  companion 
made  holes  by  the  method  of  two  conical  holes  coming  together.  But  even  this 
method  could  be  used  for  the  perforation  of  axes.  Particularly  interesting  are 
beautifully  polished  axes  made  of  nephrite2  in  the  late  neolithic  period. 

CERAMICS 

The  Siberian  neolithic  ceramics  are  marked  by  their  elegant  form  and  variable 
ornamentation,  by  which  they  advantageously  distinguish  themselves  from  the 
neolithic  ceramics  of  European  Russia.  They  consist  of  egg-shaped  pots  with  a 
conical  bottom.  When  put  on  the  hearth  they  were  supported  by  three  stones 
which  took  the  place  of  the  present  tripod.  Pots  with  a  flat  bottom,  which  are 
characteristic  of  the  iron  period,  are  almost  absent.  In  a  neolithic  station  on  the 
Baikal  Lake  Professor  Petri  found,  however,  two  flat-bottomed  pots.  The  walls 
of  the  Siberian  neolithic  pottery  were  thin  and  porous  in  order  to  accelerate  boiling, 
while  the  flat-bottomed  clay  vessels  of  the  metallic  ages  have  thick  and  compact 
walls  and  are  used  for  conservation  of  liquids  and  milk  products  and  not  for  cooking. 
The  large  amount  of  the  remains  of  pottery  shows  that  the  Siberian  neolithic  man 
was  rather  a  settled  dweller,  as  pottery  requires  a  more  sedentary  mode  of  life  on 
account  of  its  fragility.  The  use  of  pottery  is  an  effective  check  to  nomadism. 
The  manufacture  of  the  Siberian  neolithic  pottery  was  evidently  the  privilege 
of  the  women,  as  decorative  patterns  produced  by  fingers  show  the  small  finger 
traces  of  women.  The  clay  vessels  had  handles  outside  the  upper  rim,  or  perfora¬ 
tions  under  the  rim,  which  were  intended  to  suspend  the  vessels  over  the  fire.3 
As  tempering  ingredients,  Professor  Petri  found  quartz  sand  and  gravel,  but  no 
other  nonplastic  materials.  He  contends  also  that  cooking  by  means  of  hot  stones 
put  in  wooden  trays  filled  with  water  was  not  used  by  the  Siberian  neolithic  man.4 
He  does  not  mention  inside  handles  like  those  of  the  primitive  Aino-Kamchadal 
pottery. 

1  The  traditions  of  Siberian  tribes  recorded  by  the  author  mention  dug-out  canoes  and  rafts  as  primitive  means  of 
navigation.  The  sea-going  Siberian  neolithic  Chukchee  and  Koryak  had  skin  boats. 

2  Nephrite  was  highly  prized  by  the  neolithic  man  of  Europe  as  well  as  of  Siberia.  This  mineral  is  found  in  many 
places  of  Siberia;  possibly  the  neolithic  manufacturer  knew  other  sources  of  supply  and  there  is  no  reason  to  suggest  its 
importation  from  Europe,  where  it  seems  to  be  scarce  and  sources  of  supply  little  known.  See  G.  G.  MacCurdy,  Human 
Origins,  vol.  ii,  p.  98. 

3  For  cooking  in  wooden  trays  and  pottery  with  handles  inside,  see  later  in  chapter  on  pottery. 

4  See  chapter  on  pottery. 


The  Stone  Age  in  Siberia  and  Adjacent  Countries 


31 


BONE  INDUSTRY 

Artifacts  made  from  bone  and  horn  were  found  chiefly  in  graves.  The  remains 
of  neolithic  culture  were  located  mostly  in  sandy  sites  or  in  the  upper  layers  of 
loess-like  deposits  of  black  earth.  Sand  is  rather  a  bad  medium  for  preservation 
of  bone,  as  are  the  upper  layers  of  soil,  which  are  easily  influenced  by  atmospheric 
agents. 

Of  the  artifacts  discovered,  bone  daggers,  harpoon  heads,  fishing  hooks, 
chisels,  awls,  needles,  spoons  and  scoring  sticks  may  be  named.  Awls  of  different 
sizes  were  found.  Bone  needles  were  quite  thin  and  had  eyes,1  and  were  kept  in 
cases  made  of  birds’  leg  bones.  There  was  a  rich  collection  of  the  neolithic  bone 
industry  from  the  banks  of  the  Angara  River.  From  other  localities  of  Siberia 
only  single  specimens  are  known. 

DWELLINGS  OF  THE  NEOLITHIC  PERIOD  IN  SIBERIA 

Very  few  traces  of  neolithic  dwellings  were  found  in  Siberia,  and  those  dis¬ 
covered  were  of  different  shapes.  On  the  shores  of  the  Baikal  Lake  on  the  site 
called  Ulan-Khad2  circles  of  stones  with  openings  toward  the  south  were  found. 
Evidently  these  are  remains  of  conical  tents  which  consisted  of  poles  covered  with 
strips  of  larch  bark.  The  present  Karagas  and  some  Tungus  divisions  also  put 
stones  at  the  bottom  of  their  tents  in  order  to  securely  fasten  the  lower  ends  of  the 
bark  cover.3  On  the  Angara  River  Professor  Petri  found  remains  of  four-cornered 
earth  huts  with  entrances  toward  the  south.  The  pits  were  about  1  yard  deep, 
3  yards  wide  and  5  yards  long. 

Neolithic  dwellings  discovered  by  Slovtzov  near  Tyumen  on  the  shores  of  the 
Antreyevsky  Lake  (see  above,  p.  26)  consisted  of  earth  huts  which  formed  villages 
surrounded  by  walls  and  trenches. 

The  neolithic  earth  huts  of  Siberia  represented  pits  of  four-angular,  oval  or 
circular  form,  like  some  pits  of  the  middle  Neolithic  Period  of  Western  Europe. 
Some  of  the  pit  dwellings  had  boarded  floors  and  seats.  The  hearth  was  located 
in  the  center  of  the  dwelling  under  a  square  or  round  opening  in  the  ceiling,  for 
entrance,  light  and  smoke  outlet.  Some  of  the  earth  huts  also  had  side-entrances 
for  certain  seasons  or  the  whole  year. 

SKELETAL  REMAINS  OF  NEOLITHIC  MAN  IN  SIBERIA 

We  have  said  before  (p.  23)  that  no  skeletal  remains  of  the  palaeolithic  man 
have  been  discovered  in  Siberia  as  yet.  But  this  is  not  the  case  with  the  neolithic 
man,  the  remains  of  which  are  already  known,  from  some  places  at  least.  Vit- 
kovsky4  discovered  at  the  mouth  of  the  Kitoi  River,  a  tributary  of  the  Angara, 
and  Ovchinnikov,  in  the  village  Glaskovo  near  Irkutsk,  neolithic  graveyards 

1  It  is  of  interest  to  note  that  bone  needles  of  the  ancient  Aleut  had  no  perforation;  the  thread  was  tied  to  a  notch  in 
the  upper  end  of  the  needle.  See  Archaeological  Investigations  in  the  Aleutian  Islands,  Carnegie  Institution,  Pub.  No.  367, 
p.  91. 

2  B.  E.  Petri,  The  Neolithic  Colony  in  the  Pestchanaya  Bay  by  the  Baikal  Lake,  Irkutsk,  1921. 

3  The  present  Chukchee  and  Koryak  use  stones  to  fasten  the  lower  ends  of  the  skin  cover  of  their  tents  tucked  inside 
the  tent. 

4  N.  I.  Vitkovsky,  An  Account  on  Excavations  of  Graves  of  the  Stone  Age  in  the  Province  Irkutsk  on  the  Left  Bank  of  the 
Angara  River,  made  in  the  Summer  of  1881,  Bull.  East-Siberian  Division  Russian  Geograph.  Society,  vol.  xm,  No. 
1-2,  p.  1-36.  Id,  A  Brief  Account  on  the  Excavation  of  a  Grave  of  the  Stone  Age  made  in  July  1880,  Bull.  East-Siberian 
Division  of  the  Russian  Geograph.  Society,  vol.  xi,  No.  3-4,  p.  1-12. 


32 


Archeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


which  were  thoroughly  excavated.1  Sosnovsky  found  two  neolithic  graves  near  the 
village  Rasputino  on  the  Angara  River.2  Neolithic  burials  were  discovered  in 
the  environs  of  Krasnoyarsk  by  I.  T.  Savenkov3  and  V.  V.  Peredolsky.4  All  these 
graves  gave  exceedingly  interesting  data,  characterizing  the  primitive  beliefs 
of  the  Siberian  neolithic  man.5  Osteological  remains  have  shown  that  there 
were  probably  several  narrow-headed  varieties  in  northern  Asia  in  the  neolithic 
period.  They  were  more  differentiated  in  the  beginning  of  the  metal  age.  The 
prehistoric  dolichocephalic  Chuds  of  southern  Transbaikalia,  the  narrow-headed 
builders  of  the  tumuli  (kurgans)  in  southern  Siberia,  and  the  dolichocephalic 
kurgan  builclers  of  south  Russia  probably  belonged  to  one  stock,  identified  with 
the  blue-eyed  and  blond  Usuns  or  Wusuns  and  the  Dinlins  of  the  Chinese  annals, 
with  the  Sacse,  the  western  Scythians,  and  with  the  Nordics  of  northern  Europe. 
These  are  regarded  as  having  been  nomadic  peoples,  mostly  pastoral. 

Craniometric  measurements  of  skulls  of  the  kurgans,  made  by  the  Siberian 
anthropologist  Gorostchenko,  gave  evidence  of  the  existence  of  one  physical  type, 
a  long  head,  which  does  not  correspond  to  the  type  of  the  modern  population  of 
the  region,  whether  Turk  or  Mongol. 

The  present  Ainos  and  Yeniseians  may  be  regarded  as  remnants  of  the 
dolichocephalic  stock  in  Asia. 

It  must  be  pointed  out  here  that  the  gap  between  the  ancient  peoples  of 
Siberia  and  their  modern  successors  has  not  yet  been  bridged.  The  Chinese 
annals  of  the  second  century  b.  c.  mention  the  blond  and  blue-eyed  Usuns  to  the 
north  of  Mongolia.  But  at  that  time  there  had  been  continual  movement  in  Asia, 
and  great  changes  seem  to  have  taken  place  even  in  comparatively  recent  times. 
The  Huns  left  China  for  the  west  at  the  end  of  the  second  century  of  our  era.  The 
Uigurs  descended  from  the  Altai  in  the  seventh  century;  the  Pechenyegs  in  the 
same  century  and  the  Polovtzy  in  the  eleventh  passed  Central  Asia  to  the  west; 
about  the  same  time  the  Kirghiz-Kaisak  made  their  appearance  from  the  Tyan- 
Shan  Mountains.  A  part  of  these  nomadic  Turko-Mongolic  invaders  evidently 
diverted  to  the  north  and  exterminated  or  assimilated  the  dolichocephalic  abor¬ 
igines  of  Siberia. 

NEOLITHIC  SITES  IN  COUNTRIES  ADJACENT  TO  SIBERIA 

The  Lake  Kosogol — Neolithic  sites  on  the  banks  of  the  Kosogol  Lake  in 
Northern  Mongolia  were  discovered  by  Professor  Petri6  in  1923.  He  identifies  the 
Kosogol  neolithic  finds  with  those  of  the  Baikal  Region  and  regards  them  as 
belonging  to  one  neolithic  province.  Specimens  of  both  regions  show  similar  char¬ 
acteristics:  microlithic  implements,  perfection  of  technics  in  flint  specimens  and 
fragments  of  pottery  decorated  by  impressions  of  textile  fabrics. 

1  B.  E.  Petri,  The  Siberian  Neolith,  Irkutsk,  1926,  p.  28. 

2  G.  P.  Sosnovsky,  Prehistoric  Remains  by  the  Village  Rasputino  on  the  Angara  River,  Irkutsk,  1924,  Pub.  Irkutsk  Scien¬ 
tific  Museum. 

3 1.  T.  Savenkov,  To  the  Material  concerning  the  Archaeology  of  the  Middle  Course  of  the  Yenisei,  Bull.  East-Siberian 
Division,  Russian  Geographic  Society,  vol.  xvii,  No.  3-4,  pp.  30-33. 

4  V.  V.  Peredolsky,  On  the  Yenisei  River  and  its  Tributaries,  Bull.  East-Siberian  Division,  Russian  Geographical 
Society,  vol.  xxxn,  No.  3,  pp.  210-214. 

6  B.  E.  Petri,  The  Siberian  Neolith,  Irkutsk,  1926,  p.  33. 

6  B.  Petri,  Antiquities  of  the  Kosogol  Lake,  Mongolia,  Irkutsk,  1926  (in  Russian). 


The  Stone  Age  in  Siberia  and  Adjacent  Countries 


33 


The  Inner  Mongolia — As  the  elevated  region  of  the  Kosogol  is  too  cold  to  be 
a  place  of  permanent  abode  for  neolithic  man,  Professor  Petri  assumes  that  he 
moved  there  from  the  interior  of  Mongo  ha  for  the  summer  season.  This  conjec¬ 
ture  may  be  corroborated  by  the  finds  of  neolithic  specimens  in  the  province 
Jokhol  (Inner  Mongolia,  116  longitude,  44  latitude)  on  the  River  Sira-Muren 
(a  tributary  of  the  Lao-Khe  River)  by  the  French  explorers,1  who  discovered 
artifacts  of  palaeolithic  industry  in  Northern  China.2 

The  Gobi  Desert — Walter  Granger  and  other  members  of  the  third  Asiatic 
Expedition  of  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History  found,  in  1922-1923, 
traces  of  a  neolithic  culture  in  two  or  three  places  in  the  Gobi.  Later  (in  1925) 
another  member  of  that  expedition,  the  archaeologist  N.  E.  Nelson,  found  traces 
in  Inner  and  Outer  Mongolia  of  at  least  four  successive  culture  stages.  The 
third  and  fourth  culture  levels  represent  two  closely  related  culture  stages,  respec¬ 
tively,  of  neolithic  and  mesolithic  types.  The  uppermost  is  characterized  by 
decorated  pottery  of  the  handmade  order  of  rubbed  or  ground  and  partly  polished 
stone  implements  and  utensils  and,  above  all,  by  chipped  stone  tools  and  weapons. 
The  lower  or  mesolithic  level  resembles  the  neolithic  in  enough  respects  for  us  to 
say  that  it  is  organically  related  to  it,  i.  e.,  is  ancestral  to  it;  yet  it  differs  from 
the  neolithic  in  exhibiting  no  pottery,  no  true  polished  stone  implements  and  no 
arrow  points.  In  place  of  these  items  it  carries  a  vast  number  of  small,  slender, 
oblong,  highly  specialized  flakes,  the  specific  use  of  which  is  not  entirely  clear. 
Another  distinguishing  characteristic  is  the  presence  of  drilled  disk  beads  made  of 
shells.  Strange  to  say,  they  found  scarcely  a  trace  of  bone  or  antler  implements 
belonging  to  these  two  closely  related  cultures,  Nelson  regards  the  mentioned 
pre-neolithic  culture  level  as  equivalent  to  the  Azilian  culture  of  Europe.  In 
another  place  Mr.  Nelson  says  concerning  his  Gobi  finds:3 

“Some  bits  of  flint  and  fragments  of  pottery  from  distant  parts  of  the  Gobi  may  indicate  that 
the  early  man  had  been  there,  at  least  in  late  stone  age  times.  Some  225  miles  from  Kalgan  were 
found  several  cores  and  flakes  of  flint  and  also  a  number  of  bits  of  broken  pottery,  all  unquestionably 
of  neolithic  date.  Traces  of  stone  artifacts  were  found  as  far  as  into  the  Altai  region.  No  form  of 
implements  recognizable  as  early  palaeolithic  type  were  discovered.  We  did  not  positively  succeed 
in  finding  any  palaeolithic  implements  actually  imbedded  at  some  depth  in  formations  of  Pleistocene 
Age,  but  on  the  surface.  It  must  suffice  to  say  that  during  late  pre-neolithic  and  neolithic  time  man 
lived  and  worked  there.  The  artifacts  remains  imbedded  in  the  sands  show  that  the  time  was  long 
enough  for  the  culture  to  change  from  a  phase  strongly  resembling  the  Azilian  of  Western  Europe 
to  one  of  out  and  out  neolithic  characteristics.” 

In  his  latest  report  Nelson  says4  of  the  Yangtze  River  region  in  Central  China, 
that  no  decisive  evidences  were  obtained  of  the  life  in  that  region  of  the  stone  age 
man,  whether  in  caves  or  in  open  places.  The  results  of  the  Central  Asiatic  Expe¬ 
dition  show  that  prehistoric  man  played  a  very  inconspicuous  role  in  this  territory, 
that  he  was  not  a  cave  dweller,  nor  a  hunter,  but  a  woodsman  and  agriculturist, 
and  that  he  arrived  upon  the  scene,  probably  by  boat,  at  a  time  not  long  prior  to 

1  E.  Licent  et  P.  Teilhard  de  Chardin,  Note  sur  deux  instruments  niolithique  de  Chine,  Anthropologie,  1925,  vol. 
xxxv,  No.  1-2,  pp.  63-74. 

*  See  above,  p.  25. 

3  N.  C.  Nelson,  Notes  on  the  Archxology  of  the  Gobi,  American  Anthropologist,  Jan.-Mar.  1926,  pp.  305-308; 
Archaeological  Research  in  Asia,  Nat.  Hist.  Jour.,  American  Museum  Natural  Hist.,  May-June,  1925,  p.  314. 

*  N.  C.  Nelson,  The  Dune  Dwellers  of  the  Gobi,  Natural  History,  May-June  1921,  p.  241. 


34 


Archaeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


the  introduction  of  the  potter’s  wheel.  They  suggest,  moreover,  that  palaeolithic 
man,  the  true  hunter,  either  never  reached  the  heart  of  China,  or  else  that  the  for¬ 
bidding  character  of  the  environment  kept  him  out  of  this  particular  region.  Of 
these  two  alternatives  the  second  is  of  course  the  only  safe  one  to  embrace  for  the 
present;  for  not  until  the  reconnaissance  has  been  carried  farther  west,  well  up 
into  the  Tibetan  highlands,  can  we  safely  exclude  palaeolithic  man  from  this  corner 
of  Central  Asia.1 

Eastern  Mongolia,  Manchuria,  Korea,  Japan  and  China — The  Japanese  arch 
aeologists,  Dr.  and  Mrs.  Torii,  say  as  follows  of  the  culture  of  the  primitive  popu¬ 
lation  of  Eastern  Mongolia: 

“We  are  induced  to  believe  that  the  Tong-Hou2  of  Eastern  Mongolia  had  no  eolithic  and 
palaeolithic  periods,  that  from  the  time  of  their  arrival  in  those  regions  they  knew  only  the  neo¬ 
lithic  period,  a  period  which  is  here  in  Asia  not  so  sharply  cut  off  from  the  preceding  palaeolithic 
period  as  in  Western  Europe,  and  finally  that  those  peoples  came  from  somewhere  else,  likely  from 
the  Altai  or  Turkestan,  bringing  with  them  a  civilization  already  advanced.  It  is  difficult  to  say  at 
what  epoch  they  arrived,  but  at  the  time  of  the  Emperor  Hoang-Ti,  more  than  2000  b.  c.  they  were 
already  old  dwellers.” 

From  oldest  neolithic  times  the  ancient  population  of  Eastern  Mongolia  were 
making  pottery;3  at  first  of  a  very  rough  make,  it  gradually  reached  perfection.4 * 

According  to  Dr.  and  Mrs.  Torii,  Manchuria,  Korea,  Japan  and  even  China 
seem  to  have  ho  palaeolithic  remains.6  In  Asia  the  polished  stone  age  seems  to 
be  less  clearly  separated  from  the  older  age  of  dressed  stone  than  it  is  in  Europe, 
according  to  Professor  Boule.6  But  all  these  countries  are  rich  in  prehistoric  relics, 
ranging  from  the  stone  age  to  the  iron  age.  The  seaboard  of  Manchuria  (Port 
Arthur),  of  Amur  and  of  Japan  have  many  shellmounds  and  kitchen  middens 
similar  to  those  of  Denmark.  Sometimes  raised  high  above  the  present  sea-level 
they  contain  neolithic  implements  of  a  special  character.  These  countries,  as 
well  as  Korea,  are  dotted  with  many  megalithic  monuments.  The  Chinese  pre¬ 
historic  period  is  still  almost  unknown;  but  we  are  aware  that  it  includes  a  neolithic 
phase. 

Dr.  J.  G.  Anderson,  mining  adviser  to  the  Chinese  Government,  has  made 
numerous  exceedingly  important  discoveries  in  both  caves  and  open  sites,  of  what 
he  considers  a  late  neolithic  industry,  called  by  him  the  Yang-Shao  Culture,  after 
his  first  type  station  in  Honan.  Anderson  is,  however,  very  cautious  in  his  state¬ 
ments.  He  says:7 

“So  far  no  undoubted  evidence  of  palaeolithic  man  has  been  discovered  in  northern  China. 
Also  undoubted  neolithic  man  can  hardly  be  said  to  have  been  proved  to  occur  in  these  regions.  But 
we  have  traced  the  distribution  in  northern  China  of  early  culture,  which  during  our  excavations 
has  so  far  yielded  no  metal  objects  and  which  as  a  whole  must  be  said  to  be  of  late  neolithic  type.” 

1  N.  C.  Nelson,  Prehistoric  Man  of  Central  China,  Natural  History;  Journal  American  Museum  Natural  History, 
vol.  xxvi,  Nov.-Dee.,  No.  6,  1926,  pp.  570-579. 

2  According  to  the  interpretations  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Torii  based  on  Chinese  annals,  the  Tong-Hou  were  the  aborigines 
of  Eastern  Mongolia  at  present  extinct  or  at  least  transformed  by  mixture.  Numerous  remains  of  this  original  race  were 
found  by  the  above-named  explorers. 

3  R.  Torii  et  Kimiko  Torii,  Etude  archeologique  et  ethnologique;  Populations  Primitives  de  la  Mongolie  Orientale,  p.  87. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  92. 

6  R.  Torii,  and  Torii  Kimiko,  Etude  archeologique  et  Sthnologique,  Jour.  College  Science,  vol.  xxxvi,  Tokyo,  1914. 

6  M.  Boule,  Fossil  Men,  p.  355. 

7  See  J.  G.  Anderson,  An  Early  Chinese  Culture,  Bull.  Geological  Survey  of  China,  No.  5,  Part  1,  October  1923, 

pp.  1-68. 


The  Stone  Age  in  Siberia  and  Adjacent  Countries 


35 


Absolutely  no  trace  of  palaeolithic  man  in  Japan  has  appeared  and  it  is  alto¬ 
gether  likely,  says  Dr.  Bishop,1  that  the  islands,  together  with  eastern  Asia  gener¬ 
ally,  remained  unpeopled  until  geologically  very  recent  times.  Torii  discovered 
numerous  neolithic  sites  on  the  Kurilian  Islands,  Shumushu  and  Paramushir. 
The  most  ancient  sites  are  purely  neolithic  and  bear  Ainos  characteristics,  and 
may  go  back  from  3,000  to  4,000  years  b.  c.  They  are  generally  located  on  well- 
selected  places.2 

The  first  wave  of  Tungus  invaders,  from  2,000  to  1,000  years  b.  c.,  were  also 
neolithic,  and  even  the  second  wave  of  the  Mongoloids  coming  from  the  continent 
between  the  seventh  and  sixth  centuries  b.  c.  were  neolithics. 

In  Manchuria,  Dr.  Torii3  has  made  extensive  neolithic  discoveries.  The  exca¬ 
vations  of  Pumpelly4  and  his  associates  in  Turkestan  revealed  that  the  deepest 
archaeological  remains  discovered  there  belonged  to  the  neolithic  period.  They 
are  characterized  by  handmade  pottery,  polished  stone  implements  and  by  the 
absence  of  copper.  These  sites  are  called  Anau  1  by  Pumpelly.  No  palaeolithic 
sites  are  reported  by  the  members  of  the  Turkestan  Expedition. 

A  WARMER  CLIMATE  IN  SIBERIA  DURING  THE  NEOLITHIC  PERIOD 

We  have  seen  before  how  far  to  the  north  of  Siberia  pottery  and  other  arti¬ 
facts  of  neolithic  culture  were  manufactured  by  the  neolithic  man  of  Siberia. 
At  present  the  northern  tundras  of  Siberia  are  inhabited  by  peoples  (Ostyak, 
Samoyeds  and  others)  who  were  forced  out  from  the  south  by  newcomers  from 
Central  Asia,  and  who,  as  it  is  contended,  regressed  in  their  culture  under  the  unfav¬ 
orable  conditions  of  life  in  the  Arctic  region.  But  there  remains  a  question,  who 
were  responsible  for  the  remains  of  neolithic  culture  in  the  far  north — the  ancestors 
of  the  present  inhabitants  or  some  other  peoples?5  This  question  may  be  solved 
in  the  future  by  extensive  excavations,  but  we  must  admit  that  during  the  neolithic 
period  northern  Siberia  was  favored  by  a  much  milder  climate  than  at  present. 
This  belief  may  be  corroborated  by  the  investigations  of  V.  N.  Sukachev  of  the 
turfs  of  the  Karsky  tundra  (between  the  River  Stchuchya  and  the  Kara  Sea). 
He  discovered  remains  of  firs,  pines,  larches,  birches  and  alders  there,  where 
now  the  treeless  tundra  extends,  and  he  suggests  that  formerly  it  was  much 
warmer  at  that  latitude.  He  refers  this  period  to  the  time  following  the  retreat 
of  the  last  glaciation.6 

1  Carl  Whitting  Bishop,  The  Historical  Geography  of  early  Japan,  From  Report  for  1925,  p.  548,  Smithsonian  In¬ 
stitution,  Washington,  1926. 

*  R.  Torii,  Htudes  archeologiques  et  Sthnologique:  Les  Ainou  des  lies  Kouriles,  Journal  College  of  Science  Tokyo 
Imperial  University,  vol.  xlii,  Art.  1,  pp.  189-190,  Tokyo,  1919-1921. 

3  Ibid,  p.  318. 

4  Raphael  Pumpelly,  Explorations  in  Turkestan:  Prehistoric  Civilization  of  Anau,  Vols.  i-ii,  Pub.  No.  26,  Carnegie 
Inst.  Wash.,  1908. 

6  It  must  be  added  that  the  Obdorsk  pottery  resembles  on  one  hand  the  prehistoric  pottery  of  the  Ladoga  Lake  in 
the  north  of  European  Russia,  on  the  other  the  ceramics  found  in  the  Baikal  Lake  region.  But  whether  this  may  be  regarded 
as  a  result  of  borrowing,  convergent  development  or  migration  of  the  makers  remains  for  the  future  to  decide. 

*  See  Meteorological  Messenger,  1922,  pp.  25-43  (in  Russian). 


36 


Archeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


A  warmer  climate  is  also  suggested  by  the  zoologist,  A.  A.  Byalynitzky-Birula, 
for  the  Angara  country  in  the  transitional  time  from  the  late  Magdalenian  to  the 
Gschnitz  period,  according  to  remains  of  Arctic  animals  which  disappeared  in 
that  period.1 

1  See  B.  E.  Petri,  The  Siberian  N eolith,  p.  38  (in  Russian). 


CHAPTER  V 


METALS  IN  THE  PREHISTORIC  KAMCHATKA 

In  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  Japanese  Government  pro¬ 
hibited  all  navigation  beyond  its  home  waters,  and  before  the  Russians  conquered 
Kamchatka  the  Kamchadal  were  not  acquainted  with  the  use  of  metals.  How¬ 
ever,  there  is  no  doubt  that  some  iron  instruments  and  other  Japanese  goods  had 
reached  Kamchatka  through  the  Kurilians,  even  before  the  Russian  invasion. 
Mr.  Torii  says  that  the  Japanese  never  traded  directly  with  Kamchatka,  as  con¬ 
tended  by  Bogoras.1  The  Japanese,  according  to  Torii,  exchanged  their  goods 
with  the  Ainos  of  Yezo.  The  latter  sold  them  to  their  Kurilian  kin  at  the  regular 
fairs  on  the  Island  Rasava,  and  the  Kurilians  delivered  them  to  the  Kamchadal 
and  the  Kamchadal  brought  them  to  the  Koryak  and  Chukchee.  Thus  the  Kam¬ 
chadal  got  from  the  Kurilians  swords,  needles,  iron  pans,  cotton  stuff,  dresses 
made  of  bark  fiber,  armors,  plumb  and  silver  earrings,  belts  with  silver  buckles, 
in  exchange  for  fur-skins,  before  the  Russians  introduced  metallic  objects  to  them. 
In  the  excavations  in  many  pits  on  the  shores  of  the  Kuril  Lake,  I  found  brass 
coins  of  the  eleventh  century,  according  to  the  decision  of  Professor  Koganei, 
to  whom  I  showed  the  coins.  As  the  coins  were  only  of  one  period  we  may  draw 
the  conclusion  that  at  that  period  the  Japanese  trade  with  Kamchatka,  through 
the  Aino-Kurilian  intermediary,  was  quite  extensive.2  The  old  Japanese  coins 
had  a  hole  in  the  center  and  it  might  be  that  Kamchadal  women  wore  them  as 
ornaments. 

However,  these  trivial  borrowings  from  the  Japanese  culture  were  quite  insig¬ 
nificant  and  scanty  and  the  real  transition  from  the  neolithic  period  to  a  metallic 
stage  had  taken  place  under  the  influence  of  the  Russians,  who  brought  to  Kam¬ 
chatka  iron,  copper,  bronze  and  silver  instruments,  vessels  and  ornaments. 

It  was  not  so  in  central  and  western  Siberia.  There  the  Russians  found  old 
seats  of  metallic  production.  As  the  Russian  invaders  were  chiefly  warriors  and 
not  artisans  they  had  to  have  recourse  in  their  needs  to  native  metal  workers  and 
iron  smelters. 

METALS  IN  SIBERIA 

Siberia,  as  we  have  said,  was  acquainted  with  the  use  and  manufacture  of 
metallic  objects,  reduction  of  metals  from  their  ores  and  making  alloys  before  the 
Russian  conquest.  But  the  historical  development  of  metallurgy  in  some  places 
of  Siberia  was  different  from  that  of  Europe. 

1  See  Waldemar  Bogoras,  The  Chukchee,  p.  54. 

2  According  to  Krasheninnikoff  (vol.  n,  p.  49,  in  Russian)  the  Kamchadal  called  a  needle  "shish”  and  the  Japanese 
as  procurers  of  needles  “shishaman.” 


37 


38 


Archeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


TRANSITION  FROM  THE  NEOLITHIC  PERIOD  TO  THE  AGE  OF  METALS  IN  SIBERIA 

The  first  attempts  to  put  the  bronze  age  in  Europe  before  the  iron  age  were 
made  by  Danish  scholars.  Later  Swedish  and  French  archaeologists  classified  the 
European  bronze  age  into  three  and  five  epochs,  respectively.  The  bronze 
industry  of  Siberia  is  represented  by  two  main  prehistoric  seats,  those  of  the 
country  of  Minusinsk  and  the  locality  of  the  Transbaikalia  Steppes,  and  by  several 
sites  to  the  west  of  the  Minusinsk  region,  investigated  by  Professor  Radloff. 

Radloff,  basing  his  knowledge  on  his  excavations  of  stone  graves  and  burial 
mounds  of  the  bronze  and  iron  ages  in  the  west  Siberian  steppes  and  river  valleys, 
pictures  these  two  epochs  in  the  following  manner. 

Old  stone  graves  in  the  Yenisei  Valley  and  Altai  country  and  ancient  burial 
mounds  in  the  steppes  furnished  in  abundance  copper  and  bronze  implements, 
kettles,  ornaments  and  objects  of  art  along  with  some  stone  implements,  and  there¬ 
fore  we  may  be  justified  in  concluding  that  the  use  of  iron  was  still  unknown  to  the 
producers  of  those  remains.  The  bronze  workers  may  have  been  a  settled  people. 
Among  the  bronze  objects  parts  of  horse  harness  were  very  seldom  found.  They 
were  hunters,  but  there  is  no  proof  of  their  having  been  cattle  breeders.  Professor 
Radloff  contends  that  the  representatives  of  the  Siberian  bronze  epoch  were  the 
so-called  Yeniseians,  later  Turkeyized,  and  not  the  forefathers  of  the  Ugrian- 
Samoyeds,  who  formerly  lived  in  the  Altai-Sayan  regions.  There  is  no  proof, 
says  Radloff,  that  the  present  Ugrian-Samoyeds  reached  a  higher  stage  of  culture 
in  their  original  abode  than  they  do  at  present.  They  were  from  the  beginning 
nomadic  reindeer  breeders. 

Those  Yeniseian  bronze  manufacturers  later  learned  the  art  of  iron  industry 
from  the  Tu-kiu,  i.  e.,  Turks,  who  were  nomadic  horsemen,  troublesome  and 
warlike,  but  who  pursued,  however,  agriculture  near  their  winter  quarters  (see 
Dr.  Wilhelm  Radloff,  Aus  Sibirien,  Leipzig,  1893,  vol.  11,  pp.  78-109,  116-143). 

As  to  the  regions  of  Minusinsk  and  Transbaikalian  Steppes,  both  the  late 
Professor  Radloff  and  Professor  Petri1  regarded  these  two  hearths  of  bronze  as 
imported  from  the  south  by  nomadic  cattle  breeders.  Nomadism  and  cattle 
breeding  are  regarded  as  indispensable  attributes  of  the  Siberian  Bronze  Culture, 
and  thus  the  bronze  industry  lastingly  established  itself  in  the  two  mentioned 
cattle-breeding  localities.  While  these  two  bronze  manufacturing  centers  were 
developing,  the  forest  border  to  the  north  of  them  served  as  a  check  to  the  spread¬ 
ing  of  cattle  breeding  and  bronze  industry.  The  neolithic  period  still  continued 
to  keep  ground  in  the  woods. 

In  speaking  of  the  bronze  culture  seat  of  Minusinsk,  at  least  two  names  of 
investigators  of  Minusinsk  antiquities  may  be  mentioned — D.  A.  Klementz2  and 
A.  M.  Tallgren.3  Klementz,  while  being  a  political  exile  in  Minusinsk,  was  the 
first  to  compose  a  systematic  catalogue  of  the  collections  of  the  metal  age  of  the 

1  W.  W.  Radloff,  The  Siberian  Antiquities,  vol.  I,  parts  1-3,  vol.  n,  part  I;  Materials  for  the  Archeology  of  Russia, 
Pub.  Archaeological  Commission,  1888. 

B.  E.  Petri,  The  Siberian  Neolith,  Irkutsk,  1926,  p.  34  (both  in  Russian). 

2  D.  A.  Klementz,  The  Antiquities  of  the  Minusinsk  Museum:  Remains  of  the  Metalic  Epochs,  Tomsk,  1886  (in 
Russian). 

3  A.  M.  Tallgren,  Chapitres  d’ ArchSologie  Sib&rienne:  Collection  Tovostine  des  Antiquitis  Prihistoriques  de  Minus - 
sinsk  conservies  ches  le  Dr.  Karl  Hedman  a  Vasa,  Society  Finlandaise  d’Arch6ologie,  Helsingfors,  1917. 


Metals  in  the  Prehistoric  Kamchatka 


39 


Minusinsk  Museum.  Tallgren  was  not  satisfied  with  the  somewhat  schematic 
description  of  Klementz.  He  gives  an  accurate  account  of  a  collection  of  1,053 
archaeological  specimens  collected  in  the  region  of  Minusinsk  by  the  Russian  collec¬ 
tor  Tovostine,  and  tries  to  connect  this  region  historically  and  chronologically 
with  surrounding  cultural  provinces.  He  is  inclined  to  regard  the  bronze  and 
copper  socketed  celts  of  the  bronze  period  of  central  Siberia  as  due  to  European, 
particularly  Hungarian,  influence. 

According  to  Dr.  Laufer’s  suggestion  the  Minusinsk  bronze  province  may  be 
regarded  as  a  connecting  link  between  the  Scythian  area  of  Southern  Russia  and 
the  culture  of  ancient  China. 

Professor  Rostovtzeff,  the  well-known  authority  in  classical  archaeology,  is 
more  explicit  in  the  interpretation  of  the  artistic  and  historic  connections  of  the 
Minusinsk  bronze  culture  to  that  of  the  Scythians  and  China.  Professor  Rostovt¬ 
zeff1  suggests  that  the  motives  of  the  Scythian  animal  style  had  their  origin  in 
Assyria.  The  theory,  which  accounts  for  the  genesis  of  the  Scythian  animal  style, 
places  its  origin  in  a  country  which  roughly  corresponds  to  modern  Turkestan, 
but  which  comprises  also  the  mountain  region  of  Altai,  rich  in  metals.  Here 
an  Iranian  people,  the  Sacians,  in  constant  intercourse  with  Assyria,  founded  the 
animal  style  which  they  afterward  brought  with  them  to  South  Russia. 

The  Assyrian  elements  reached  Siberia  indirectly  through  another  medium, 
and  were  distorted  before  they  arrived.  The  Minusinsk  style  of  bronze  manufac¬ 
ture,  although  by  no  means  primitive  and  bearing  marks  of  Assyrian  influence, 
shows  no  signs  of  evolution;  it  remains  almost  stationary  and  is  much  poorer  in 
motives  than  the  Scythian  animal  style.  The  Siberian  style  is  very  awkward, 
clumsy  and  crude.  It  is  a  decadent  and  derivative  style. 

There  is  no  direct  connection  between  the  Minusinsk  bronze  culture  and  that 
of  China.  The  Chinese  themselves  were  influenced  in  their  art,  as  well  as  in  their 
-military  training,  burial  customs  and  beliefs,  by  the  Iranian  tribes  of  Sarmatians 
and  Alans,  who  were  akin  to  the  Scythians  and  who  took  part  in  the  Hunnish 
assaults  upon  China. 

DIRECT  TRANSITION  OF  NEOLITHIC  CULTURE  INTO  THE  IRON  AGE  IN  SOME  PARTS  OF  SIBERIA 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  late  neolithic  period  of  the  middle,  forested 
part  of  Siberia  went  over  immediately  into  the  iron  age  without  having  passed 
through  the  bronze  age.  To  the  north  of  the  Baikal  Lake,  Russian  archaeologists 
(Petri,  Ovchinnikov,  Ostrovskikh  and  others)  have  discovered  many  sites  of  pre¬ 
historic  iron  manufacturers  with  remains  of  the  late  neolithic  period.  Remains 
of  iron  foundries  and  forgeries  were  discovered,  along  with  stone  artifacts  of  the 
late  neolithic  times.  According  to  their]  form  and  mode  of  manufacture,  single 
specimens  of  bronze  found  here  and  there  came  evidently  by  the  way  of  exchange 
or  raids  from  Minusinsk  or  Transbaikalia. 

In  the  history  of  material  culture  we  know  other  cases  of  such  direct  suc¬ 
cession  of  the  stone  age  into  that  of  iron. 

1  See  Iranians  and  Greeks  in  South  Russia  by  M.  Rostovtzeff,  Hon.  D.  Litt,  Professor,  University  of  Wisconsin, 
Member  Russian  Academy  of  Sciences,  Oxford,  1922,  pp.  197-202. 


40 


Archeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


The  late  Professor  von  Lushan1  contended  that  Africa  was  not  only  the  place 
of  origin  of  iron  technics,  but  that  the  negroes  knew  the  art  of  smelting  iron  before 
they  began  the  manufacture  of  bronze.  Professor  G.  G.  MacCurdy2  also  admits, 
concerning  Africa,  that  south  of  Sahara  there  was  no  bronze  age  properly  so-called, 
the  iron  age  immediately  succeeding  the  neolithic  period. 

Iron  was  the  first  metal  to  be  utilized  by  the  Eskimo,  who  fashioned  knives 
from  masses  of  telluric  iron  in  Ovifak,  Greenland,  according  to  Nordenskiold. 

There  is  little  or  no  evidence  of  a  bronze  age  in  Japan,  says  Chamberlain.3 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Torii  maintain  that  the  Tong-Hou,  the  ancient  inhabitants  of  Eastern 
Mongolia,  knew  the  neolithic  age,  and  the  iron  age  followed  it  without  any 
period  of  transition.4 

The  Tong-Hou  did  not  manufacture  bronze.  Objects  of  bronze  found  here 
and  there  are  undoubtedly  of  Chinese  make  and  importation.  The  same  may  be 
said,  according  to  these  explorers,  of  Manchuria  and  Korea.  Mr.  Torii5  found  in 
southern  Manchuria  sites  on  which  neolithic  artifacts  were  mixed  with  iron  objects, 
and  he  contends  that  the  neolithic  man  of  South  Manchuria  got  iron  from  Korea. 
Along  with  iron-objects  were  found  some  bronze  implements  and  ornaments,  but 
these  objects  were  certainly  of  Chinese  manufacture  and  importation.  The 
primitive  dwellers  of  Eastern  Mongolia  were  not  bronze  workers.  This  region 
knew  the  stone  age  and  the  iron  age  without  any  transitional  age  of  bronze. 

R.  Torii6  says  that  the  Manchus,  like  the  oriental  Mongols,  directly  passed 
from  the  age  of  stone  to  the  age  of  iron  without  having  passed  through  the  age  of 
bronze. 

The  successors  of  the  Tong-Hou,  the  Wouhwang  and  the  Siem-Pi,7  according 
to  the  Chinese  historians  were  iron-workers  at  the  end  of  neolithic  times.  This  is 
shown  by  finds  of  iron  slags  along  with  neolithic  artifacts  (and  this  may  be  said 
also  concerning  Korea  and  Manchuria).  The  map  (fig.  1)  demonstrates  the 
palaeolithic,  neolithic  bronze  and  iron  stations  of  Siberia  as  far  as  they  are  known 
at  present.  From  this  map  can  be  seen  how  little  archaeological  investigation  has 
been  made  in  Siberia  until  now.  Most  places  still  form  a  tabula  rasa ,  and  it  remains 
an  open  question  whether  the  conclusions  I  have  made  will  be  corroborated  in  the 
future  or  not. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  the  above  quoted  authorities  concerning  Japan, 
Korea,  Manchuria,  Mongolia,  China  and  other  places.  We  regard  these  quota¬ 
tions  as  an  enumeration  of  statements  of  up-to-date  investigators,  which  may  be 
confirmed  or  confuted  by  future  excavations. 

1  Felix  von  Lushan,  Eisentechnik  in  Afrika,  Zeitschrift  fur  Ethnologie,  Band  41,  Berlin,  1909;  also  in  Volker,  Rassen, 
Sprachen,  Berlin,  1922,  p.  5. 

2  George  Grant  MacCurdy,  Human  Origins,  New  York  and  London,  1924,  vol.  ix,  p.  181. 

3  Basil  Hall  Chamberlain,  Things  Japanese,  London,  1905,  p.  29. 

4  R.  Torii  and  Kimiko  Torii,  Etudes  Archiologiques  et  Ethnologiques:  Populations  Primitives  de  la  Mongolia  Orientals, 
Jour.  College  of  Science,  Tokyo  Imperial  University,  vol.  xxxvi,  1913-1915,  p.  97. 

6  R.  Torii,  Etudes  Archeologiques  et  Ethnologiques:  Populations  prehistoriques  de  la  Mandchourie  Meridional,  Jour.  Coll. 
Science,  Tokyo  Imperial  University,  vol.  xxxvx,  1913-1915,  p.  42. 

6  R.  Torii,  Etudes  Archeologiques  et  Ethnologiques.  Populations  prehistoriques  de  la  Mandchourie  Meridional,  Jour. 
College  of  Science,  Tokyo  Imperial  University,  vol.  xxxvi,  Art.  8). 

7  The  Siem-Pi  are  regarded  of  Mongolian  (Tungusic)  origin  (see  Kean,  Man  Past  and  Present,  1920,  p.  291), 
while  the  Tong-Hou  may  have  been  descendants  of  Caucasic  peoples. 


Distribution  op  Pai 


CHAPTER  VI 


ARCHAEOLOGICAL  REMAINS  FROM  THE  KAMCHATKA  EXCAVATIONS 

SOURCE  MATERIAL  FOR  STONE  IMPLEMENTS 

The  following  is  a  list  of  minerals  of  which  the  Kamchadal  manufactured 
their  stone  implements  and  weapons.  The  minerals  are  given  in  the  order  of  their 
diminishing  hardness: 

1  Flint 

2  Hornstone  schist 

3  Quartz  schist 

4  Quartzite 

5  Jasper  (variety  of  quartz) 

6  Chalcedony  (agate) 

7  Andesite 

8  Obsidian,  andesitic 

9  Augite,  andesitic 

While  on  the  Aleutian  Islands1  no  flint  implements  were  found,  a  considerable 
number  of  arrow  heads  and  other  implements  excavated  by  the  author  in  Kam¬ 
chatka  were  made  of  flint,  according  to  the  determination  of  a  mineralogist,  Profes¬ 
sor  A.  G.  Titov  of  the  University  of  Moscow.  The  Aleut  used  andesite,  instead  of 
flint,  most  frequently  for  stone  implements;  the  Kamchadal  very  seldom  used  this 
material,  preferring  the  massive  varieties  of  quartz  and,  partly,  obsidian. 

Soapstone,  of  which  the  Eskimo  manufacture  their  lamps,  is  not  met  in 
Kamchatka  and  the  Kamchadal  use  harder  minerals  for  lamps,  as  will  be  seen  later. 

LOCALITIES  WHERE  EXCAVATIONS  WERE  MADE 

The  present  writer  made  excavations  in  the  following  places : 

(1)  On  the  shore  of  Salt  Lake  on  the  isthmus  in  the  Avacha  Bay,  August  19,  1910. 

(2)  In  the  Bogatyrevskaya  Bay,  above  Salt  Lake,  in  the  forest,  August  20,  1910. 

(3)  Cup-like  holes  were  excavated  not  far  from  Salt  Lake  in  afternoon  of  the  same  day. 

(4)  On  the  slope  of  the  hill  on  the  northeastern  side  of  the  Bogatyrevskaya  Bay,  August  21, 

1910. 

(5)  In  the  village  Syeroglaska,  10  miles  from  Petropavlovsk,  August  25,  1910. 

(6)  In  the  village  Savoiko,  August  29-30,  1910.  Savoiko  is  located  on  the  left  bank  of  the 
Avacha  River,  16  miles  from  its  mouth.  Formerly  it  was  called  Stary  Ostrog  and  renamed 
Savoiko  after  the  Governor  of  Kamchatka  (1850-1855),  the  senior  captain  and  later  admiral,  V.  S. 
Savoiko. 

For  numbers  1  to  6,  see  map  of  the  Avacha  Bay  (p.  42). 

(7)  On  the  bank  of  the  Nalacheva  River,  September  19. 

(8)  On  the  shores  of  the  Nalacheva  Lake,  September  20  to  24,  1910. 

(9)  On  the  Nalacheva  Cape,  September  26-30,  1910. 

(10)  Ancient  site  on  the  mouth  of  Kulki  River,  emptying  itself  into  the  Tighil  River,  4.6 
miles  from  its  mouth,  June  10,  1911. 

(11)  Ancient  site  on  the  mouth  of  Kavran  River,  June  27  to  July  6,  1911. 

(12)  On  the  bank  of  Osernaya  River,  2  miles  from  Kuril  Lake,  August  6,  1911. 

(13)  On  the  Siwusk  Cape  in  Lake  Kuril  from  August  9  to  August  14,  1911. 

1  W.  Jochelson,  Archaeological  Investigations  in  the  Aleutian  Islands ,  p.  66. 


10  Porphyrite 

11  Sandstone 

12  Quartz  slate 

13  Marble 

14  Slate 

15  Red  ocher 

16  Volcanic  tuff 

17  White  clay 


41 


42 


Archaeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


Of  the  above  localities,  Numbers  1  to  12  yielded  the  following  sites: 

Site  1 

On  a  hill  above  Salt  Lake  there  were  several  pits,  which  could  not  be  noticed 
at  first  sight  as  they  were  covered  with  an  abundant  overgrowth  of  the  shelamainik 
(■ Filipendula  kamtschatica  Max.)  and  horse-tails  ( Equisetum  heleocharis  Ehrh.)  6 
feet  high.  The  staple  food  of  the  old  Kamchadal  fishers  consisted  of  different 
salmon  species,  the  bones  of  which  in  decaying  formed  an  excellent  fertilizer  for  the 
soil.  In  my  work  on  the  Aleutian  archaeology  I  pointed  out  that  no  bones  of 
salmon  were  found  in  excavations  of  ancient  village  sites  on  the  Aleutian  Islands, 
contrary  to  the  statements  of  Dr.  Dali  for  the  Aleutian  Islands  and  Professor 
Emile  Riviere,  cited  by  Professor  MacCurdy,  concerning  finds  in  a  cave  near 


1.  Salt  Lake. 

2.  Bogatyrevskaya  Bay. 

3.  Isthmus  above  the  Salt  Lake. 

4.  Slope  of  hill  on  the  northeastern 

side  of  Bogatyrevskaya  Bay. 


Menton,  France.1  In  his  Human  Origin ,  Professor  MacCurdy2  cites  Mr.  Abbo  as 
having  found  on  a  skeleton  excavated  in  Verneau,  France,  perforated  salmon  ver¬ 
tebrae,  evidently  worn  as  ornaments.  It  would  be  interesting  to  determine  whether 
the  vertebrae  were  really  of  salmon,  and  not  of  some  other  species  of  fish.  As  I 
have  stated,  the  soft  bones  of  Salmonoidea,  which  ascend  rivers  and  fresh-water 
lakes  for  spawning,  decay  rapidly,  falling  to  pieces  in  2  or  3  years. 

Professor  R.  Torii3  referring  to  remains  of  food  found  in  his  archaeological 
excavations  in  Manchuria  tells  of  fish  bones,  the  species  of  which  could  not  be 
determined  because  they  were  only  a  heap  of  powder.  These  were  undoubtedly 
salmon  bones. 

1  Waldemar  Jochelson,  Archaeological  Investigations  in  Aleutian  Islands,  p.  138;  W.  H.  Dali,  On  Succession  in  the 
Shell  Heaps  of  the  Aleutian  Islands,  Contributions  to  North  American  Ethnology,  vol.  i,  Washington,  1877,  pp.  41-91;  G.  G. 
MacCurdy,  The  Field  of  Paleolithic  Art,  American  Anthropologist,  vol.  26,  No.  1,  Jan.-Mar.,  1924,  p.  41. 

2  George  Grant  MacCurdy,  Human  Origins,  vol.  x,  p.  392. 

3  R.  Torii,  Populations  Prehistoriques  de  la  Mandchourie  MSridionale,  Jour.  College  of  Science,  Tokyo  Imperial 
University,  1913-1915,  vol.  xxxvi,  Art.  8,  p.  48. 


Archeological  Remains  from  the  Kamchatka  Excavations  43 

As  it  was  not  an  easy  piece  of  work  to  cut  away  the  heavy  stalks  of  the  coarse 
vegetation,  w^e  excavated  only  one  pit,  in  which  but  few  specimens  were  found. 
The  hill  was  9  feet  high  over  the  lake.  The  pit,  after  the  vegetation  was  cleared, 
was  5  feet  deep.  Then  followed  a  3-foot  layer  of  dark  mold  and  a  layer  of  yellow 
clay  without  any  trace  of  cultural  remains.  No  unperishable  remains  of  building 
material  were  found.  Specimens  found  in  the  mold  layer  were: 

(1)  A  piece  of  rude  pottery  (2157).1 

(2)  A  stone  implement,  not  finished  (2158). 

(3)  A  stone  hammer  (2159). 

Site  2 

There  were  4  pits  over  the  lake.  The  layer  of  mold  was  very  thin  and 
yielded  only  two  specimens: 

(1)  A  fragment  of  a  stone  lamp  (2160),  very  primitive. 

(2)  An  obsidian  arrow  point,  not  finished  (2161). 

Site  3 

Not  far  from  the  lake,  right  over  the  sea,  about  3  feet  high  were  many  cir¬ 
cular  shallow  pits  on  the  flat  gravel  in  which  no  cultural  remains  were  found.  My 
Kamchadal  laborers  could  not  explain  the  origin  of  these  pits.  They  are  probably 
traces  of  round  tents  of  a  military  camp  of  the  European  allies  who  landed  in 
Kamchatka  during  the  Crimean  war. 

Site  4 

There  were  several  pits  with  remains  of  burnt  wood  and  stones  in  the  dark 
soil,  to  the  depth  of  3  feet,  but  no  other  refuse.  A  yellow  sand  formed  the  base 
of  the  pit. 

Site  5 

A  pit  was  excavated  to  the  depth  of  4.5  feet.  A  layer  of  3  feet  contained 
cultural  remains.  There  were  found  charcoal,  burnt  stones,  bones  of  seals  and 
shells  of  mollusks  ( Katharina  tunicata  Wood  and  Modiola  modiolus  L.)  and  the 
following  specimens : 

(1)  A  flint  arrow  point  (2162). 

(2)  A  polished  marble  object  resembling  a  labret  (2163),  but  it  must  be  noted  that  no  labrets 
were  used  as  personal  ornamentations  by  the  ancient  Kamchadal. 

(3)  A  stone  ax. 

Site  6 

Two  pits  were  excavated  near  the  village  Savoiko. 

Pit  A :  The  depth  before  digging  was  3  feet  8  inches  and  a  shaft  was  cut  5  feet 
2  inches  deep.  The  layers  were  as  follows: 

(1)  Yellow  sand  covered  with  grass,  1  foot  high. 

(2)  Volcanic  ash,  5  inches  deep. 

(3)  Fine  gravel,  1  to  2  inches. 

(4)  Dark-brown  sand  with  roots  of  plants,  2  feet  7  inches. 

(5)  Black  soil  with  organic  remains,  2  inches. 

(6)  Brown  sand,  1  inch. 


1  The  catalogue  number  is  shown  in  parenthesis. 


44 


Archaeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


3.  Laurel  leaf-like  blade  of  dark  grayish  flint. 

6.  Arrow  blade  of  green  jasper. 

7.  Arrow  flint  blade. 


9.  Blade  of  black  obsidian. 

10.  Stone  pestle  of  quartz  slate. 


All  of  Nalacheva  Lake. 


Pit  B:  Length,  24.7  feet;  width,  22.2  feet.  The  entrance  was  directed  to  the 
east.  We  excavated  6  feet  7  inches  deep  until  a  single  layer  appeared.  Separate 
layers  were: 

(1)  Organic  remains  and  roots  of  plants,  2  feet. 

(2)  Gray  sand  and  volcanic  ash,  2  feet  6  inches. 

(3)  Yellow  sand,  2  feet  1  inch. 

Pits  A  and  B  yielded  the  following  finds:  1  stone  ax  (2165);  1  obsidian  arrow 
or  harpoon  point  (2166);  a  piece  of  pottery  (2167);  a  laurel  leaf-like  blade  of  dark 
greyish  flint  with  fine  trimming  on  both  sides.  Length,  91  mm.;  greatest  width, 
32  mm.;  thickness,  11  mm.  (see  fig.  3,  2168);  a  stone  arrow  not  finished;  and  two 

stone  hammers  (2170  and  2171). 

Site  7 

My  party  left  Petropavlovsk 
on  horseback  on  September  13  at 
12.30  afternoon  and  reached  the 
village  Khalakhtyrka  at  6  in  the 
evening.  The  route  lay  through 
a  low  ridge  and  by  the  shore  of 
the  Khalakhtyrka  Lake.  The  last 
1.3  miles  we  moved  along  the 
Khalakhtyrka  River,  a  most  pic¬ 
turesque  country.  We  passed  the 
night  in  Khalakhtyrka  village.  A 
Pit  No.  i,  Nalacheva  Lake.  stone  celt  found  while  building  a 


Archeological  Remains  from  the  Kamchatka  Excavations 


45 


blockhouse  was  given  to  me  (2209).  We  left  Khalakhtyrka  in  the  morning  of 
September  14.  We,  and  our  laborers,  had  to  walk,  as  I  could  get  only  four  pack 
horses  for  our  freight,  and  the  horses  and  drivers  from  Petropavlovsk  had  to  return 
to  that  place.  When  it  became  dark  we  put  up  our  tents  and  stopped  for  the  night, 
only  1.3  miles  from  the  Nalacheva  River. 

In  the  morning  of  September  15  we  left  our  camp,  and  about  3  o’clock  in  the 
afternoon  crossed  the  river  in  two  small  boats.  Usually  one  boat  is  left  on  each 
bank  for  the  use  of  travelers.  You  cross  the  river  in  the  boat,  taking  a  part  of 
your  freight  with  you,  and  coming  back  with  two  boats  you  carry  over  the  remain¬ 
ing  freight  and  passengers.  There  are  also  some  planks  leaning  on  trees,  by  which 
you  can  bridge  the  two  boats  in  order  to  take  over  heavy  freight  or  to  cross  more 
safely.  The  river  is  quite  wide  and  has  a  strong  current.  The  horses,  freed  from 
their  pack  or  riding  saddles,  are  driven  into  the  river  and  forced  to  swim  across. 
After  crossing  the  river  the  travelers  have  to  return  both  boats  to  their  proper 
places. 

On  September  16  we  passed  the  sites  on  the  Nalacheva  River  and  between 
the  river  and  Nalacheva  Lake.  September  17  to  19  we  excavated  two  sites  on 
the  Nalacheva  River,  one  6  feet  2  inches  deep,  the  other  4  feet  7  inches  deep. 
In  none  of  them  were  artifacts  found,  except  burned  stones  in  the  center — traces 
of  former  hearths. 

On  the  shores  of  the  Nalacheva  Lake  excavations  were  made  on  September 
20  to  24,  1910.  Traces  of  pit-dwellings1  were  discovered  all  around  the  lake, 
showing  that  the  place  had  been  densely  populated. 

Pit  No  1  was  3  feet  10  inches  before  digging  (fig.  4).  The  hearth,  1  foot  deep 
after  digging,  was  opposite  the  entrance  passage.  In  the  corners  of  the  north¬ 
eastern  side  burned  wood  was  found  instead  of  posts.  On  the  west,  in  a  hole  2 
feet  deep,  a  rotten  post,  the  lower  end  of  which  had  been  partly  preserved,  was 
still  standing.  The  entrance  passage  was  10  inches  deep  before  digging.  The  pit 
was  covered  with  the  grass  of  meadow-sweet  ( Filipendula  kamtschatica  Max.), 
spear-grass  ( Calamagrostis  langsdorfii  Trin.)  and  Pleurospernum  kamtschaticum 
Hoffm.  of  the  Umbelliferae. 

The  distances  between  the  inner  posts  were  6  feet  and  7  feet  2  inches.  The 
following  artifacts  were  found: 

(1)  A  fragment  of  an  obsidian  arrow  point, 

not  finished  (2194). 

(2)  A  stone  arrow  point  (2194). 

(3)  A  stone  arrow  point,  not  finished  (2195). 

(4)  Five  fragments  of  pottery. 

Pit  No.  2  (fig.  5)  was  16  by  15  feet. 

The  length  of  the  entrance  passage  was 
8  feet.  Before  digging  the  depression  was  4  feet,  and  the  pit  was  excavated  to  a 

1  The  sketches  of  the  depressions,  the  outward  evidences  of  ancient  underground  dwellings,  are  given  in  a  some¬ 
what  irregular  form,  as  they  were  drawn  by  the  writer  in  the  field.  The  irregular  configuration  of  the  cavities  may  be 
explained  by  the  falling  in  of  parts  of  the  earthen  walls. 


46 


Archeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


depth  of  1.5  feet  only.  Yellow  sand  without  cultural  remains  followed.  The  follow¬ 
ing  artifacts  were  discovered: 

(1)  Fig.  6  (2206).  An  arrow  blade  of  dark  green  jasper,  with  a  rounded  base,  well  finished, 
the  point  being  broken  off.  Length,  55  mm.;  greatest  width,  15  mm.;  greatest  thickness,  11  mm. 

(2)  Fig.  7  (2207).  A  fragment  of  a  small  obsidian  point,  similar  to  an  Aleut  surgical  lancet.1 

(3)  A  fragment  of  the  lower  part  of  an  obsidian  arrow  point  (2208). 

(4)  A  stone  celt  (2210). 

(5)  A  piece  of  pumice  for  polishing  stone  implements  (2211). 

(6)  Fragments  of  two  clay  pots. 

(7)  In  the  entrance  passage  a  piece  of  pottery  with  an  inside  ear  was  found. 

In  the  morning  of  September  21,  1910,  the  temperature  was  3°  C.;  in  the  after¬ 
noon  snow  was  falling. 


Pit  No.  3,  Nalacheva  Lake. 


Pit  No.  4,  Nalacheva  Lake. 


Pit  No.  3  was  2  feet  5  inches  deep  before  digging,  and  was  excavated  to  the 
depth  of  4  feet.  The  following  artifacts  were  discovered  in  this  pit  (fig.  8) : 

(1)  An  arrow  point  of  rock  crystal  (2192). 

(2)  A  fragment  of  a  stone  celt  (2191). 

(3)  A  stone  celt  (2205). 

(4)  A  stone  arrow  point  (2197). 

(5)  An  obsidian  arrow  point  in  the  form  of  a  laurel-leaf,  black  with  red  veins.  Length,  64  mm. ; 
greatest  width,  27.5  mm.;  greatest  thickness,  9  mm.  Illustrated  in  fig.  9  (2198). 

(6)  A  whetsone  for  grinding  and  polishing  (2199). 

(7)  A  stone  chisel  (2200). 

(8)  Fig.  10  (2201).  A  polished  cylindrical  pestle  of  grayish  quartz  slate  for  grinding  paints 
orfpossibly  food,  made  of  edible  plants  mixed  with  animal  fat  or  oil.  Near  both  ends  of  the  imple¬ 
ment  traces  of  pecking  with  a  hammerstone  may  be  seen,  perhaps  for  making  grooves.  Length, 
62  mm.;  greatest  diameter,  about  23  mm. 

Before  digging,  Pit  No.  4  was  4  feet  deep,  and  it  was  excavated  to  the  depth 
of  7.5  feet  (fig.  11).  Artifacts  discovered  were: 

(1)  A  stone  celt  (2202). 

(2)  A  piece  of  rock  crystal  with  traces  of  an  arrow  point  (2203)  having  been  manufactured 
from  it. 

(3)  A  small  obsidian  arrow  point  (2204). 

At  Site  9,  on  the  Nalacheva  Cape,  diggings  were  made  on  September  26  to  30, 
1910. 


1  W.  Jochelson,  Archaeological  Investigations  in  the  Aleutian  Islands,  p.  60,  fig.  16. 


Archeological  Remains  from  the  Kamchatka  Excavations 


47 


Figs.  12  to  16,  showing  Pits  1  to  5  on  Nalacheva  Cape. 


Pit  No.  1  before  digging  was  2  feet  6  inches  deep  and  was  excavated  to  the 
depth  of  3.5  feet.  In  the  right  corner  from  the  entrance  there  were  found  hearth 
stones  and  on  them  were  some  shells  of  the  mollusk  Mytilus  edulis  L. ;  a  broken  clay 
pot  was  also  found.  The  following  artifacts  were  discovered  in  this  pit  : 

(1)  A  flat  obsidian  arrow  point  (2178). 

(2)  A  fragment  of  such  a  point  (2179). 

(3)  A  small  obsidian  arrow  point  (2180). 

(4)  A  piece  of  obsidian  in  process  of  arrow  making  (2181). 

Before  digging,  pit  No.  2  was  2  feet  4  inches  deep  and  the  excavation  was  carried 
to  the  depth  of  4  feet.  X  (fig.  13)  shows  the  place  where  a  complete  clay  pot  with 


48 


Archeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


handles  inside  was  found;  0,  where  fragments  of  another  pot  were  found.  The 
diameter  of  the  rim  of  the  complete  pot  was  1  foot  6.25  inches,  of  the  bottom  11 
inches,  and  the  height  of  the  pot  was  8  inches.  The  pot  was  discovered  at  a  depth 
of  3  feet  4  inches.  The  pit  before  digging  was  covered  with  Empetrum  nigrum  L., 
Epilobium  angustifolium  L.,  bushes  of  the  wild  rose  ( Rosa  acicularis  Lindle),  the 
fern  ( Cryptogramme  acrostichoides  R.  Br.)  and  other  plants,  and  it  took  much  time 
to  clean  the  pit  before  digging.  The  following  stone  artifacts  were  found: 

(1)  Two  rudely  made  arrow  points  of  quartz  (2172). 

(2)  Four  obsidian  arrow  points. 


17.  Pit  No.  6,  Nalacheva  Cape. 

20.  Sketch  of  Nalacheva  Lake  and  Cape. 

21.  Sketch  of  ancient  site  of  Kulki  River. 

23.  Sketch  of  ancient  site  of  Kavran  River. 

The  depth  of  Pit  No.  4  before  digging  was  2  feet  4  inches  and  it  was  excavated 
to  the  depth  of  3.5  feet.  Only  two  obsidian  arrow  points  were  found  (2184,  2185). 

Pit  No.  5  before  digging  was  2  feet  2  inches  deep  and  excavation  was  done  to 
the  depth  of  3  feet  8  inches.  Artifacts  found  were: 

(1)  A  stone  celt  (2187). 

(2)  An  obsidian  arrow  point,  not  finished  (2188). 

(3)  A  fragment  of  a  thin  obsidian  arrow  point. 


Archaeological  Remains  from  the  Kamchatka  Excavations 


49 


The  depth  of  Pit  No.  5  before  digging  was  3.5  feet  and  it  was  excavated  to  a 
depth  of  3.5  feet.  The  following  artifacts  were  found: 

(1)  Five  fragments  of  a  clay  pot,  2  with  ears  inside  (2214). 

(2)  A  broken  stone  ax. 

(3)  Three  pieces  of  pumice  for  polishing  stone  implements  (2216). 

(4)  Fig.  19  (2222)  a-c.  A  flint  blade  for  an  arrow  or  throwing  dart.  Judging  by  the  assymetrical 
curving  it  is  not  finished.  Length,  90  mm.;  greatest  width,  19  mm.;  greatest  thickness,  7  mm. 

(5)  A  fragment  of  a  stone  wedge  (2223). 

(6)  A  fragment  of  a  stone  implement  (2224). 

(7)  Fragments  of  one  clay  pot  (2239). 

(8)  Fragments  of  another  clay  pot  (2240,  2241). 


19 


18.  Chisel  of  quartz  schist,  Nalacheva 

Cape. 

19.  Flint  blade,  Nalacheva  Cape. 

22.  Lance  point  of  flint,  Ivulki  River. 


The  depth  of  Pit  No.  6  before  digging  was  3  feet  10  inches  and  it  was  excavated 
to  the  depth  of  4  feet.  Artifacts  found  were: 

(1)  A  stone  celt  (2182). 

(2)  Fig.  18  (2183).  A  chisel  of  greenish  gray  quartz  schist,  polished.  Length,  62  mm.; 
greatest  width,  20  mm.;  width  of  blade  18  mm. 

(3)  Three  pieces  of  pumice  for  polishing  stone  implements. 

(4)  A  big  piece  of  pumice,  with  a  hole  for  hanging  (2226). 

(5)  A  stone  lamp  (2228). 

(6)  Two  stone  sinkers  (2229,  2235). 

(7)  A  stone  lamp  (2239). 

(8)  A  fragment  of  a  stone  ax  (2231). 

(9)  A  flat  stone  sinker  (2232). 

(10)  A  fragment  of  a  stone  wedge  (2233). 

(11)  Eleven  pieces  of  white  clay  (2234). 

The  sketch  of  map  (fig.  20)  was  drawn  by  the  son  of  the  Governor  of  Kam¬ 
chatka,  Boris  Perfilyev,  a  naturalist,  who  accompanied  me  on  my  trip  to  the 
Nalacheva  region.  No  scale  is  given. 


50 


Archaeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


The  following  specimens,  presented  by  Governor  Perfilyev,  were  found  by 
Mr.  Eckermann,  a  representative  of  a  fishing  company,  while  digging  a  cellar  in 
Palan. 

(1)  Ten  pottery  fragments  with  traces  of  impression  of  basket  work  (2217). 

(2)  A  pottery  fragment  with  a  hole  near  the  rim. 

(3)  A  pottery  fragment  with  an  impression  of  weaving  (2219). 

(4)  An  arrow  point  of  rock  crystal  (2220). 

(5)  A  fragment  of  a  stone  implement. 

The  Kulki  River  empties  into  the  River  Tighil,  4.6  miles  from  its  mouth. 
The  site  is  located  1,738  feet  from  the  mouth  of  Kulki  on  a  hill  over  the  right 
bank  of  the  river.  There  were  traces  of  an  earthen  wall  which  surrounded  the 
site.  The  length  of  the  hill  was  76  feet;  the  width,  60  feet.  Inside  the  wall  were 
the  remains  of  two  pits,  A  and  B,  almost  circular  in  form.  The  length  of  pit  A 


24.  Knife-like  implement  of  opaque  black  flint.  Kulki. 

25.  Nucleus  of  tawny  gray  flint.  Kavran. 

26.  Flint  nucleus  with  12  tiny  facets.  Kavran. 


was  36  feet  and  its  width  25  feet;  the  length  of  pit  B  was  25  feet  and  its  width  21 
feet.  The  digging  was  done  on  June  10,  1911,  and  the  soil  was  still  frozen  from 
one  foot  down.  The  earth  had  to  be  thawed  out  by  fire  piles  before  the  digging, 
thus  hampering  the  work.  Some  specimens  were  broken  while  spading  the  dirt. 
The  following  specimens  were  found: 

(1)  Fourteen  stone  arrow  points  and  other  implements  (2690-2703).  The  greatest  length 
was  114  mm.;  the  smallest,  55  mm.  One  of  the  weapons  (2692)  is  illustrated  in  figure  24  a-b.  It  is 
a  knife-like  implement  of  opaque  black  flint.  As  both  assymetrical  sides  are  trimmed,  it  looks  rather 
to  be  a  newly  finished  blade  of  a  lance.  The  implement  is  very  thin  for  its  size.  Length,  114  mm.; 
greatest  width,  49  mm.;  greatest  thickness,  11  mm. 

(2)  Eighteen  pottery  fragments  with  ornaments  (2704). 

(3)  Fifteen  stone  implements  (2705-2719).  One  of  these  specimens  is  illustrated  in  figure  22 
(2712)  a-b.  It  is  a  lance  point  of  black  flint.  The  stem  is  thicker  than  the  point.  Carefully 
chipped,  the  edges  are  steeply  trimmed.  The  stem  was  evidently  intended  to  be  inserted  into  a 


Archaeological  Remains  from  the  Kamchatka  Excavations 


51 


wooden  shaft.  Length,  110  mm.;  greatest  width,  47  mm.;  smallest  width,  10  mm.;  thickness  of 
the  narrow  end,  9  mm.;  of  the  broad  end,  8  mm.  Fig.  22,  b,  shows  the  side  view. 

(4)  A  long  stone  arrow  point  (2723). 

(5)  A  stone  ax  (2724). 

(6)  Three  stone  arrow  points,  not  finished  (2725-2727). 

(7)  Stone  pestles  (see  site  Kavran,  2729-2733). 

On  the  right  bank  of  the  Kavran  River,  in  6  minutes’  walk  from  its  mouth,  a 
site  surrounded  by  a  wall  of  earth  was  dug  out.  Within  the  wall  there  were  three 
almost  circular  pits  as  shown  in  figure  23.  According  to  a  tradition  this  was 
the  fortified  place  of  Kulki,  a  strong  man  of  Koryak  origin,  who  used  to 
cross  the  central  mountain  ridge  of  the  peninsula  in  order  to  fight  the  chiefs  of  the 
Kamchatka  valley.  The  digging  of  the  site  was  carried  to  the  depth  of  2,247  mm., 
the  frozen  soil  reaching  to  the  depth  of  2,095  mm.  The  shaft  dug  represented  the 
following  layers : 


1027  mm . a  layer  of  turf  (A). 

1287 . clay  containing  (B)  organic  remains. 

1522 . charcoal,  implements,  organic  remains  and  clay  (C). 

1797 . clay  containing  very  little  organic  remains  (D). 

2167 . yellow  clay  (E). 

2247 . shingle  (F). 


The  excavation  of  the  site  was  continued  from  June  22  to  July  10  inclusive. 
As  the  soil  was  still  frozen  it  had  to  be  thawed  by  burning  wood,  layer  after  layer. 
This,  however,  did  not  prevent  the  breaking  by  the  spade  of  some  of  the  artifacts 
while  digging.  Almost  all  of  the  artifacts  were  found  in  layer  C,  and  very  few  of 
them  in  layers  B  and  D.  The  fact  that  artifacts  were  discovered  only  at  a  certain 
depth  bears  witness  of  the  antiquity  of  the  site.  The  following  objects  were  found: 

(1)  24  stone  arrow  points;  the  largest  is  100  mm.  long  and  the  smallest  21  mm.  (2665-2688). 
Of  these  the  following  are  illustrated:  figure  30  (2666),  a-c,  a  laurel  leaf-like  blade  of  black  flint  with 
some  defective  trimming.  Length,  99  mm.;  greatest  width,  32  mm.;  greatest  thickness,  12  mm. 
Figure  36  (2667),  a-b,  an  obsidian  blade  of  a  laurel  leaf-like  shape,  nicely  trimmed.  Length,  48 
mm.;  greatest  width,  17  mm.;  thickness,  10  mm.  Figure  29  (2668),  a-c,  an  arrow  point  of  black 
flint,  with  small  facets  and  symmetrical  sides  finely  trimmed.  Length,  60  mm.;  greatest  width,  16 
mm.;  greatest  thickness,  8  mm.  Figure  35  (2685),  a  small  arrow  blade  of  black  flint.  Length,  21 
mm.;  greatest  width,  10  mm.;  greatest  thickness,  4  mm. 

(2)  Fragments  of  pottery  (2689,  2720,  2721). 

(3)  A  stone  ax  of  quartz  limestone  (2728). 

(4)  A  lance  point  of  tawny  gray  flint,  rudely  chipped,  evidently  not  finished.  Length,  222 
mm.;  greatest  width,  44  mm.;  greatest  thickness,  40  mm.  See  figure  33  (2723). 

(5)  Five  stone  pestles  (2729-2733)  of  the  sites  Kulki  and  Kavran,  used  for  grinding  food  of 
edible  plants  and  roots  mixed  with  meat,  fat  or  animal  oil.  The  largest  found  in  Kavran  was  228 
mm.  long  and  is  illustrated  in  figure  28  (2733)  a-b.  Made  of  quartz  slate. 

(6)  Three  fragments  of  Japanese  porcelain  cups  (2746). 

(7)  Two  pieces  of  iron  (2745). 

(8)  Shells  of  mollusks  (2747). 

(9)  35  fragments  of  bone  arrow  heads  (2747a). 

(10)  The  bone  part  of  a  root  digger  (2748),  in  Kamchadal  qazqar. 

(11)  The  same  as  No.  10  (2749). 

(12)  A  bone  arch  which  served  as  stanchions  of  an  ancient  Kamchadal  dog  sledge,  in  Kam¬ 
chadal  msan.  Illustrated  in  figure  31  (2750),  4/15  of  natural  size. 

(13)  Two  bone  hooks  (2751,  2752).  The  first  hook  is  illustrated  in  figure  43,  1/3  natural  size; 
the  second  in  figure  50. 

(14)  Fragments  of  bone  implements  (2753-2756). 


52 


Archeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


27.  Flint  scraper. 

28.  Stone  pestle  of  quartz  slate. 

29.  Arrow  point  of  black  flint. 

30.  Laurel  leaf-like  blade  of  black  flint. 

31.  Bone  arch  of  an  ancient  Kamchadal  dog  sledge. 


32.  a-b,  implement  of  silicified  black  slate. 

33.  Lance  point  of  tawny  gray  flint. 

34.  Whetstone  of  volcanic  tuff. 

35.  Small  arrow  blade. 


All  of  Kavran.  • 


Archaeological  Remains  from  the  Kamchatka  Excavations 


53 


(15)  Two  bone  spades  (2757,  2758). 

(16)  The  bottom  of  a  Japanese  porcelain  cup  (2759). 

(17)  A  piece  of  pumice  (2766). 

(18)  A  whetstone  (2767),  for  polishing  stone  implements,  of  volcanic  tuff.  Illustrated  in 
figure  34,  4/9  of  natural  size. 

j&:  (19)  27  stone  arrow  points  (2768-2794).  Of  these  specimens  the  following  are  illustrated: 

figure  25  (2768),  a  nucleus  of  tawny  gray  flint  from  which  flakes  had  been  evidently  obtained  by 
striking  with  a  hammerstone  vertically  from  above;  nine  facets;  the  horizontal  plane  is  assymetrical. 
Length,  49  mm.;  horizontal  plane,  21  by  18  mm.  Figure  26  (2786),  a  flint  nucleus  of  a  little  darker 
tint  than  the  preceding  one,  of  a  cylindrical  shape,  with  12  tiny  facets.  Length,  35  mm.;  the 
transverse  plane  section,  9  by  8  mm.  Figure  27  (2775)  a-b,  a  scraper  of  black  flint,  nearly  tri¬ 
angular,  slightly  rounded  and  finely  trimmed  on  the  working  edge,  which  has  a  hollow  from  one 
side.  The  other  two  sides  of  the  triangle  are  irregularly  trimmed  and  rudely  chipped.  The  top 
end  might  serve  as  a  graver.  Greatest  length,  62  mm.;  greatest  width,  45  mm.;  greatest  thickness, 
13  mm.  Figure  32  (2772)  a-b,  an  implement  of  silicified  black  slate.  Evidently  a  knife  for  working 
in  wood.  The  straight  stem  might  be  kept  as  a  handle  or  inserted  in  a  wooden  handle.  The  edge 
for  cutting  is  somewhat  curved.  Length,  88  mm.;  greatest  width,  25  mm.;  greatest  width  of  the 
stem,  10  mm.,  thickness  of  the  blade,  8  mm. 

(20)  17  stone  implements  (2795-2811).  Of  these  specimens  the  following  are  illustrated: 
Figure  37  (2795),  a-b,  scraper  of  black  obsidian  almost  triangular  in  form,  with  a  rounded  working 
blade  and  shallow,  enlongated,  finger-like  facets.  From  one  side  both  edges  are  retouched,  the  other 
side  has  only  one  edge  retouched.  Greatest  length,  47  mm.;  greatest  width,  31  mm.;  thickness, 
12  mm.  Figure  38  (2801)  a-b,  a  woman’s  tailoring  knife,  polished  from  both  sides,  similar  to  the 
Aleut-Eskimo  women’s  knives  of  the  same  kind.  There  were  evidently  holes  on  the  upper  part  for 
fastening  to  a  wooden  handle.  Greatest  length,  93  mm.;  greatest  width,  30  mm. ;  thickness,  2.5  mm. 

(21)  Nine  stone  implements  (2812-2839). 

(22)  Six  bone  implements  (2821-2826). 

(23)  Thirteen  bone  implements  (2827-2839). 

(24)  Nine  bone  implements  (2840-2848). 

(25)  Five  bone  implements  (2849-2853). 

(26)  Nine  fragments  of  bone  implements  (2854-2862). 

(27)  One  bone  implement  and  12  pottery  fragments  (2863-2875). 

(28)  A  stone  sinker  (2864). 

(29)  Figure  39  (2866),  a  drill  head  of  quartzite,  2/5  natural  size. 

(30)  A  stone  sinker  (2865). 

(31)  A  stone  celt  (2867). 

(32)  Figure  42,  a  bone  spade  (2868),  1/3  natural  size. 

(33)  Six  pottery  fragments  (2869). 

(34)  Four  stone  pestles  (2870-2873). 

(35)  A  bone  knife  for  splitting  the  willow-herb  ( Epilobium  angustifolium  L.)  (2874).  Illus¬ 
trated  in  figure  41. 

(36)  Two  bone  spoons  (2875,  2876). 

(37)  Eleven  stone  implements:  celts,  arrow  points  and  knives  (2877-2887),  the  longer  of  which 
was  an  obsidian  knife,  length  150  mm. 

(38)  Figure  40  (2888),  a  stone  for  grinding  paints,  of  quartz  slate,  4/15  natural  size. 

(39)  An  obsidian  celt  (2890). 

(40)  A  large  stone  pestle  (2891). 

(41)  Two  skulls  (2917,  2918). 

(42)  Three  stone  lamps  (2921-2923). 

(43)  A  piece  of  a  whale’s  lower  jaw  (2924). 

(44)  Two  stone  pestles  (2926,  2927). 

(45)  A  stone  sinker  (2928). 

(46)  A  whetstone  (2929). 

(47)  A  stone  sinker  (2930). 

(48)  A  large  whetstone  (2931). 

(49)  Figure  48  (2932),  a  stone  hammer  of  volcanic  tuff  used  in  the  manufacture  of  stone 
lamps  and  grooving  stone  sinkers,  1/3  natural  size. 

(50)  A  whetstone  (2933). 

(51)  A  fragment  of  a  stone  pestle  (2934). 

(52)  Figure  49  (2935),  a  quartz  pebble  used  in  the  game  called  matka,  2/3  natural  size. 

(53)  Pottery  fragments  (2937). 


54 


Archaeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


36.  Obsidian  blade. 

37.  Scraper  of  black  obsidian. 

38.  Woman’s  tailoring  knife  of  slate. 

39.  Drill  head  of  quatzite. 

40.  Stone  for  grinding  paints  of  quartz. 

41.  Bone  knife  for  splitting  willow  herb. 

42.  Bone  spade. 


43.  Bone  hook. 

44.  Bone  shovel  for  digging. 

45.  Obsidian  scraper. 

46.  Stone  pestle  for  grinding  food. 

47.  Obsidian  blade. 

48.  Stone  hammer  of  volcanic  tuff. 

49.  Quartz  pebble  used  in  game. 


All  specimens  found  at  Kavran. 


Archeological  Remains  from  the  Kamchatka  Excavations 


55 


50.  Bone  hook  for  hanging  fish  for  drying.  Kavran. 

51.  Fragment  of  some  bone  implement,  much  decayed,  possibly  a  part  of  a  sledge  runner.  Kavran. 

52.  Bone  hook  of  reindeer  antler,  probably  used  as  a  root  digger.  Kavran. 

53.  Scraper-like  implement  of  quartzite.  Kuril  Lake. 

55.  Small  arrow  blade  of  brown  reddish  flint.  Kuril  Lake. 

56.  Lance  blade  or  knife  of  greatly  silicified  slate.  Kuril  Lake. 

57.  Unfinished  blade  of  greatly  silicified  slate.  Kuril  Lake. 

58.  Scraper  of  gray  dark  flint.  Kuril  Lake. 

59.  Adze  of  quartz  schist,  rudely  chipped,  with  a  polished  blade  from  both  sides.  Kuril  Lake. 


56 


Archeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


(54)  Four  ornamented  pottery  fragments  (2940). 

(55)  Figure  51  (2941),  fragment  of  some  bone  implement,  much  decayed,  possibly  a  part  of  a 
sledge  runner,  2/9  natural  size. 

(56)  Figure  52  (2943),  a  bone  hook  of  reindeer  antler,  probably  used  as  a  root  digger,  1/3 
natural  size. 

(57)  Two  handles  of  bone  spoons  (2944,  2945). 

(58)  Six  fragments  of  bone  implements  (2946). 

(59)  Four  fragments  of  bone  implements  (2947). 

(60)  Seven  fragments  of  bone  implements  (2948). 

(61)  Four  scrapers  (2949). 

We  see  from  the  number  of  specimens  found  (about  230),  that  the  excavation 
of  the  Kavran  site  was  particularly  productive. 

The  ancient  site  on  the  bank  of  the  Osernaya  River  is  2  miles  from  the  point 
where  it  flows  out  to  the  sea  from  the  Kuril  Lake.  There  were  several  depressions 
of  former  dwellings,  and  we  excavated  the  largest  of  these.  The  pit  before  digging 
was  2  feet  deep.  Then  followed  a  layer  of  black  earth  more  than  a  foot  deep,  after 
which  the  primeval  soil  consisting  of  gravel  appeared.  In  the  layer  of  black  earth 
were  found  traces  of  a  fireplace,  two  whetstones,  two  pottery  fragments,  one  of 


which  had  a  handle  inside,  and  a  Japanese  coin.  Remains  of  posts  were  not  dis¬ 
covered.  The  pit  had  a  rectangular  form  like  the  pits  on  the  shores  of  the  Nala- 
cheva  Lake.  Those  of  the  Kulki  and  Kavran  Rivers  had  rather  a  circular  form. 

Higher  in  the  rocky  bank  over  the  described  pit  was  a  small  depression  resem¬ 
bling  a  pit.  We  excavated  it  and  found  a  layer  of  mold  about  a  foot  deep  in 
which  were  only  a  fragment  of  pottery,  with  an  ear  inside,  and  some  bones  of  a  bear. 

We  came  to  the  ancient  site  on  the  shore  of  the  Kuril  Lake  on  August  8  and 
diggings  were  carried  on  from  August  9  to  14.  We  left  the  lake  August  16.  In 
order  to  reach  Lake  Kuril  we  had  to  ascend  the  Osernaya  River,  flowing  out  from 
the  lake  into  Okhotsk  Sea.  The  river  is  fifty-five  miles  long. 

The  mouth  of  the  river  is  connected  with  some  historical  episodes.  During 
the  Russian- Japanese  War,  in  May  of  1905,  a  fleet  of  Japanese  schooners  landed 
there  with  the  intention  of  taking  possession  of  Kamchatka.  The  Japanese  were 
volunteers,  numbering  150,  under  the  command  of  the  retired  Captain  Hundzi 
Naridata.  At  that  time  there  was  no  settlement  at  the  mouth  of  Osernaya  River. 
The  Japanese  put  up  a  trenched  camp,  mounted  their  only  cannon  and  hoisted  a 
Japanese  flag.  Except  the  visit  to  Petropavlovsk  by  Admiral  Togo’s  squadron, 


Archaeological  Remains  from  the  Kamchatka  Excavations 


57 


this  was  the  only  attempt  to  take  Kamchatka  by  force,  and  it  ended  very  unhappily 
for  the  Japanese. 

When  the  Japanese  were  marching  along  the  coast  to  the  village  Yavino,  its 
inhabitants  fled  into  the  mountains,  abandoning  their  houses,  belongings,  cattle 
and  dogs.  The  Japanese  finding  no  one  in  the  village,  occupied  the  Russian 
houses,  hoisted  a  Japanese  flag  over  the  chapel  and  put  up  a  post  with  a  declara¬ 
tion  of  the  annexation  of  Kamchatka  to  Japan.  Some  days  later  the  Japanese 
returned  to  Osernaya  taking  with  them  all  the  cattle,  horses  and  dogs  from  Yavino. 

In  the  meantime  a  troop  of  Russian  militia  under  command  of  Ensign  Shaba 
arrived  at  the  mouth  of  the  Yavino  River  in  a  schooner  from  Bolsheretzk,  and 
another  detachment  under  Lieutenant  Sotnikoff  reached  Yavino  by  land.  Sot- 
nikoff  took  command  of  both  detachments.  The  combined  Russian  forces  numbered 
only  80,  and  Sotnikoff  did  not  venture  an  open  attack  but  took  refuge  in  a  ruse. 
He  despatched  a  man  to  Hundji,  who  pretended  he  had  been  sent  by  the  inhabi¬ 
tants  of  Yavino  to  ask  for  a  doctor  and  victuals.  Hundji,  a  doctor  and  two  inter¬ 
preters  all  unarmed  left  Osernaya  for  Yavino.  Along  the  way  they  were  attacked 
from  ambush.  The  interpreters  were  shot  and  Hundji  and  the  doctor  captured. 
Later  a  Russian  detachment  had  a  skirmish  with  a  Japanese  vanguard  in  which 
one  Russian  was  killed  and  three  were  wounded.  The  Japanese  doctor  dressed 
their  wounds.  On  the  following  morning  the  Japanese  shot  the  cattle  and  dogs 
and  left  Osernaya  in  their  schooners  for  the  south. 

This  adventure  resulted  in  the  killing  by  the  Russians  of  peaceful  Jap¬ 
anese  fishermen  in  many  villages  on  the  western  coast  of  Kamchatka.  Usually 
the  Kamchadal  are  well  disposed  toward  the  Japanese,  who  are  just  in  their 
relations  to  the  former,  attending  their  sick  and  furnishing  them  with  medicine. 

After  the  Russian- Japanese  War  many  Russian  adventurers,  mostly  discharged 
soldiers,  found  their  way  from  Vladivostok  to  Kamchatka.  Some  were  attracted 
by  reports  of  rich  profits  obtained  by  sable  hunting,  others  by  the  desire  to  intro¬ 
duce  agriculture  in  Kamchatka,  but  they  all  remained  and  mixed  with  the  native 
fishing  population,  Kamchadal  and  Russians.  Another  company  of  adventurers 
settled  at  the  mouth  of  the  Osernaya  River,  forming  a  new  village.  At  first  their 
condition  was  deplorable.  Fishing  was  abundant  but  there  was  no  market  for 
exchange.  They  had  no  money,  flour,  tea  and  other  commodities  to  which  they 
were  accustomed  in  their  native  places  of  European  Russia.  The  women  par¬ 
ticularly  longed  for  bread,  and  often  said:  “We  would  give  up  all  the  fish  for  one 
piece  of  bread,  not  mentioning  our  melons,  fruits,  meat,  milk  products  and  sweets.” 
The  majority  of  the  immigrants  were  Ukrainians  of  southern  Russia. 

But  two  years  before  our  arrival  there  all  had  changed.  Enterprising  firms,  * 
partly  with  American  money,  began  to  develop  fisheries  for  the  export  of  Kam¬ 
chatka  salmon.  A  saltery  and  a  cannery  were  established  in  Osernaya  and  the 
Russian  colony  there  worked  during  the  short  summer  as  laborers.  The  fishing 
company  furnished  them  with  money,  food,  clothing,  fuel  and  building  material 
and  they  were  able  to  withstand  the  hardships  caused  by  the  most  inhospitable  of 


58 


Archaeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


seas,  the  Okhotsk,  and  the  severest  of  climates.  The  factories  were  closed  for  the 
eight  winter  months,  but  the  summer  was  very  busy.  Scores  of  laborers  were 
brought  on  the  company’s  steamers  from  the  Amur  River.  Not  all  the  necessary 
structures  were  ready  at  that  time,  and  the  imported  laborers  slept  under  the 
cover  of  primitive  shades.  Mountains  of  salt  lay  in  the  open,  melting  from  rains. 
A  part  of  the  laborers  were  busy  preparing  a  kind  of  caviar  from  the  roe  of 


salmon.  After  taking  out  the  roe  they  threw  overboard  the  split  fish,  causing 
an  enormous  waste  of  food-material.  The  laborers  in  the  saltery  and  cannery 
threw  out  from  their  seines  all  other  fish  than  salmon,  and  from  the  latter  the 
hump-back  salmon,  which  was  not  in  favor  with  the  foreman  of  the  plant. 

From  information  gathered  before  my  trip  to  the  lake  I  knew  that  there  were 
several  pits  of  ancient  dwellings  (see  the  map  of  the  Kuril  Lake).  The  natives 
have  either  died  out  or  were  exterminated  by  the  Russian  conquerors.  My  party 


Archeological  Remains  from  the  Kamchatka  Excavations 


59 


consisted  of  myself,  Mrs.  Jochelson  as  assistant  and  physician  to  the  party,  and 
eleven  laborers,  of  whom  seven  were  Russians,  three  Kamchadals  and  one  Japanese. 

The  Osernaya  River,  with  its  slanting  bed,  rocky  banks,  rapid  falls  and 
curves,  forms  a  most  difficult  and  dangerous  route  of  travel.  We  had  two  boats 
and  two  canoes.  One  of  the  boats  was  for  Mrs.  Jochelson  and  myself;  the  other 
carried  the  tents,  instruments,  food  and  other  supplies.  The  canoes  served  for 
reconnaissance  and  errands  requiring  despatch.  It  was  very  difficult  to  make 

progress  on  the  turbulent  river,  particularly  on  the  way  up.  Several  times  we 

had  to  disembark  and  carry  our  freight  on  our  shoulders,  while  the  boats  were 
pulled  by  ropes  through  the  rapids.  (See  Plate  5,  figs,  b,  c.) 

While  there  are  no  human  habitations  anywhere  in  the  country,  we  were 
amazed  to  find  well-beaten  paths  in  the  forests  and  on  the  mountains  above  the 
river,  as  if  there  were  numerous  human  settlements.  Rut  realizing  that  these 
were  roadways  made  by  bears,  we  walked  cautiously  amid  the  dense  vegetation 
with  rifles  ready  for  action.  We  did  not  see  any  bears  while  following  these  paths, 
but  we  heard  the  breaking  and  cracking  of  bushes  and  tree  branches,  and  on 

the  ground  we  found  pieces  of  fresh  salmon,  the  remnants  of  the  bears’  meals. 

The  animals  are  very  nervous  and  easily  become  alarmed.  They  have  sufficient 
reason  to  be  afraid  of  a  man  with  a  gun. 

It  is  well  known  that  at  Lake  Kuril  and  in  its  vicinity  scores  of  bears  are  to 
be  found.  The  abundance  of  fish  and  of  many  kinds  of  berries  furnishes  them 
ample  food  and  favors  their  increase  in  number.  The  sparsity  of  human  popula¬ 
tion  is  also  favorable  to  the  multiplication  of  the  bears,  although  the  few  hunters 
of  the  coastal  villages  annually  kill  them  by  the  hundreds. 

After  five  days  of  painful  effort  we  finally  reached  our  destination.  It  was  a 
windy  day  and  our  frail  boats  nearly  capsized  on  the  stormy  lake,  which  is  sur¬ 
rounded  by  the  peaks  of  extinct  volcanoes  and  by  steaming  hot-sulphurous  springs, 
the  temperature  of  which  reaches  100°  C.  (210°  F.)  and  more.  From  our  boat 
we  observed  steaming  springs  on  the  banks  of  the  Osernaya  when  nearing  the  lake, 
but  we  had  no  time  to  stop  to  investigate  them.  We  were  told  that  the  Kamchadal 
from  Yavino  and  the  Russians  from  Osernaya  dig  pits  by  the  hot  springs  for  bathing 
and  curing  different  diseases.  The  temperature  in  these  baths  is  reduced  to 
50°  or  40°  C. 

From  the  head  of  the  Osernaya  River  I  directed  my  fleet  to  the  Siwusk  Cape 
(see  map  of  Kuril  Lake  and  Plate  5,  fig.  a).  While  excavating  there  we  were  enter¬ 
tained  every  day  by  the  sight  of  bears  fishing  and  gathering  berries,  particularly 
when  we  increased  our  field  of  observation  by  the  use  of  opera  glasses.  The  bears 
stood  with  their  hind  legs  in  the  mountain  rivers  and  creeks,  and  with  their  front 
paws  managed  to  throw  out  on  the  banks  the  sea  salmon,  which  in  order  to  spawn 
ascend  the  rivulets  that  flow  into  the  lake.  The  bears  went  after  their  prey  and 
eating  off  the  heads  and  spines,  which  are  the  most  palatable  parts  of  the  fish, 
cast  away  the  remainder.  Their  movements,  turning,  leaping  and  jumping,  were 
so  amusing  that  we  could  not  restrain  our  laughter. 


60 


Archaeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


My  laborers  were  anxious  to  hunt  bears,  but  I  could  not  allow  them  to  go  on 
such  an  undertaking  as  the  time  was  short  and  a  Government  steamer  was  expected 
on  a  certain  date  at  the  mouth  of  the  Osernaya  River  to  take  my  party  to  Petro- 
pavlovsk.  However,  I  once  allowed  two  of  them  to  go  for  a  night  hunt  and  they 
secured  a  little  bear  cub.  They  cooked  and  ate  the  meat. 

On  the  morning  of  our  contemplated  departure  from  Lake  Kuril,  when  all  the 
specimens  found  in  the  excavations  had  been  packed,  the  lids  of  the  boxes  nailed 
down  and  the  boats  loaded,  I  was  tempted  to  linger  just  a  little  longer  upon 
seeing  two  she-bears  playing  with  their  cubs  on  the  other  side  of  a  pond  in  the  rear 
of  the  promontory.  I  accordingly  delayed  my  departure  until  the  afternoon, 
and  singling  out  two  of  the  best  marksmen  from  my  party,  and  equipped  with  a 
stereoscopic  camera  and  a  motion-picture  camera,  I  started  in  the  direction  of  the 
bears.  We  had  to  undress  in  order  to  cross  the  Etamenk  River  in  the  rear  of  the 
promontory,  and  to  carry  on  our  heads  the  bundles  of  clothing,  the  rifles  and  the 
cameras,  so  that  they  might  not  get  wet.  We  reached  the  other  bank  of  the  river, 
dressed  ourselves,  and  tried  to  pass  as  noiselessly  as  possible  through  the  little 
jungle  which  led  up  to  the  open  meadow  where  the  she-bears  were  playing  with 
their  cubs. 

We  stopped  on  the  outskirts  of  the  forest  and  put  up  the  cinema  and  stereo¬ 
scopic  cameras.  As  the  bears  were  still  too  far  away,  I  told  one  of  my  two  men  to 
make  a  circuit  about  them  and  frighten  them  from  the  rear  so  that  they  might 
come  nearer  to  us.  Both  cameras  were  in  readiness  to  take  pictures,  when  sud¬ 
denly  at  a  distance  of  about  thirty  yards  appeared  a  young  black  bear  quietly 
passing  by.  I  quickly  took  a  stereoscopic  snapshot  and  was  about  to  start  with 
my  cinema,  but  the  bear  became  frightened  by  the  clatter  of  the  falling  shutter 
of  the  photographic  camera  and,  instead  of  running  away,  rushed  in  our  direction. 
We  had  no  choice  but  to  aim  at  his  head  and  fire  as  he  neared  the  camera. 

After  ascertaining  that  the  bear  was  dead,  we  looked  around.  None  of  the 
other  bears  were  to  be  seen;  they  had  been  frightened  by  the  shooting  and  had 
disappeared.  As  I  could  not  remain  on  the  lake  any  longer,  I  had  to  give  up  the 
idea  of  another  attempt  to  approach  bears  with  peaceful  intent.  The  bear  that 
was  killed  appeared  to  be  not  more  than  three  or  four  years  old.  I  took  the  skin 
and  the  meat  of  a  hind  leg  for  the  laborers. 

We  returned  to  our  camp  late  in  the  day  and  were  compelled  to  spend  one 
more  night  on  the  promontory.  Next  morning,  our  archaeological  mission  ful¬ 
filled,  we  started  our  journey  to  the  sea. 

The  proceedings  and  results  of  the  excavations  were  as  follows:  I  selected  for 
digging  the  ancient  village  site  on  a  cape  or  rather  a  small  peninsula  in  the  south¬ 
western  part  of  the  lake.  The  Kamchadal  call  this  cape  Siwusk  (see  map  of  the 
lake).  The  village  was  located  on  the  rocky  extremity  of  the  cape  and  on  its 
slope  near  the  small  inner  lake.  The  extremity  of  the  cape  rises  over  the  lake 
about  16  meters.  The  sides  of  the  inner  lake  which  join  the  cape  with  the  main¬ 
land  are  about  six  feet  wide.  From  both  sides  of  the  cape  two  small  mountain 


Archeological  Remains  from  the  Kamchatka  Excavations 


61 


rivers  empty  into  the  lake.  They  are  rich  in  migrating  salmon,  which  ascend  the 
Osernaya  River  from  the  Okhotsk  Sea  to  the  lake  for  spawning  in  dense  masses 
and  attract  numerous  bears  roaming  the  country. 

Eighteen  pits  were  dug — 15  on  the  rocky  hill  and  3  below,  where  our  tents 
are  to  be  seen  on  Plate  5,  figure  1 .  The  general  depth  of  the  culture  layers  was  about 
3  feet.  The  pits  under  the  hill  were  larger  and  seemed  to  be  more  ancient  than 
those  on  the  hill.  No  iron  objects  were  found,  but  they  yielded  numerous  pottery 
fragments,  with  handles  inside,  but  no  ornamentation.  The  pits  were  located 
mostly  on  the  eastern  slope  of  the  hill,  over  a  steep  standing  rock,  and  the  outer 
margins  of  the  pits  seemed  to  have  fallen  down.  The  angles  of  the  pits  were 
somewhat  smoothed;  originally,  however,  the  pits  seemed  to  be  quadrangular  in 
shape,  with  the  sides  from  24  to  30  feet  long.  On  the  top  of  the  cape  was  one  pit  of 
larger  dimensions,  probably  that  of  a  communal  house  for  gatherings  and  festivals; 
this  pit  yielded  a  small  quantity  of  objects;  the  greatest  number  of  artifacts  were 
furnished  by  the  smaller  pits.  The  following  artifacts  were  found  in  the  pits  of 
the  Kuril  site : 

(1)  Nine  arrow  points  (2959-2967)  of  quartzite  and  flint,  the  longest  being  141  mm.  (Plate 
6,  A). 

(2)  Twenty  obsidian  arrow  points  (2968-2987)  (Plate  6,  B).  The  greatest  length  was  80 
mm.  and  the  smallest  18  mm. 

(3)  Seventeen  stone  knives  and  other  implements  (2988-3004).  The  largest  implement  was 
72  mm.  in  length  (Plate  7,  figs.  1-17). 

(4)  Twelve  stone  scrapers  (3005-3016);  the  largest  was  93  mm.  in  length  (Plate  7,  figs.  18-29). 

(5)  Twelve  stone  scrapers  and  other  implements  (3017-3028),  the  greatest  length  being  97 
mm.  (Plate  8,  figs.  1-12). 

(6)  Eleven  stone  implements  (3029-3039),  some  of  them  not  finished.  The  greatest  length 
was  100  mm.  (Plate  8,  figs.  13-23). 

(7)  Fragments  of  stone  implements  (3040). 

(8)  Forty-nine  stone  scrapers  (3041-3089). 

(9)  Thirteen  bone  awls  (3090-3102)  Plate  12,  figs.  1-13). 

(10)  Thirteen  bone  arrow  heads  (3103-3115)  (Plate  12,  figs.  14-26). 

(11)  Eight  bone  ornaments  and  other  objects  (3116-3123). 

(12)  Five  bone  implements  (3124-3128)  (Plate  13,  figs.  A). 

(13)  Fragments  of  bone  implements  (3129). 

(14)  Six  fragments  of  bone  implements  (3130-3135)  (Plate  13,  fig.  B). 

(15)  Four  stone  lamps  (3136-3139)  (Plate  14,  figs.  4-7). 

(16)  Three  stone  lamps  (3140-3142)  (Plate  14,  figs.  1-3). 

(17)  Three  stone  lamps  (3143-3145)  (Plate  14,  figs.  4-6). 

(18)  Remnants  of  weaving  (3151-3152). 

(19)  Pottery  fragments  of  different  pits  (3153). 

(20)  A  pottery  fragment;  the  whole  height  of  a  pot  (3154). 

(21)  A  stone  lamp;  the  first  stage  of  manufacture  (3157). 

(22)  Figure  66.  A  stone  lamp  of  andesitic  lava  in  process  of  manufacture  (3158),  4/9  natural 

size. 

(23)  A  pottery  fragment  from  Pallan.  A  gift  from  the  Governor  of  Kamchatka  (3159). 

(24)  Three  stone  lamps  (3165-3167)  (Plate  15,  figs.  1-3). 

(25)  Five  stone  lamps  (3160-3164)  (Plate  15,  figs.  4-8). 

(26)  Seven  stone  axes  (3168-3174).  The  largest  is  197  mm.  long  (Plate  9,  figs.  1-7). 

(27)  Twelve  stone  axes  (3175-3186).  The  greatest  length  is  152  mm.  (Plate  9,  figs.  8-19). 
One  of  these  specimens  is  illustrated  in  the  text-figure  59  (3183).  It  is  a  rudely  chipped  adze  of 
quartz  schist,  with  a  blade  polished  on  both  sides.  Length,  122  mm.;  greatest  width,  25  mm. 

(28)  Four  stone  sinkers  (3187-3190)  (Plate  10,  figs.  1-4). 

(29)  A  stone  sinker  (3191)  (Plate  10,  fig.  7). 

(30)  Two  stone  sinkers  with  holes  (3192,  3193)  (Plate  10,  figs.  5,  6). 


62 


Archaeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


(31)  A  stone  pestle  (3194)  (Plate  10,  fig.  8). 

(32)  Six  whetstones  and  one  sinker  (3210-3216)  (Plate  11,  figs.  1-7). 

(33)  Fifteen  stone  implements  (3195-3209):  axes,  arrow  points,  awls  and  sinkers  (Plate  11, 
figs.  8-22). 

(34)  Text-figure  60  (3217).  A  scraper  of  silicified  slate;  chipped  from  one  side  only;  the 
curved  working  end  is  trimmed;  the  other  side  of  the  implement  is  flat  with  a  few  irregular  chip- 
pings.  Length,  60  mm.;  greatest  width,  38  mm.;  thickness,  14  mm. 

(35)  Three  pieces  of  pumice  (3218). 

(36)  Four  whetstones  (3219). 

(37)  Thirteen  broken  stone  lamps  (3220-3232). 

(38)  Two  stone  axes  (3233,  3234).  One  found  near  Petropavlovsk. 

(39)  A  whetstone  (3235). 

(40)  Paint  (3236). 

(41)  A  bone  screw,  double  threads  (3237). 

(42)  Ten  iron  and  1  copper  implements  (3238). 

(43)  Two  stone  hammers  for  chipping  stone  implements  (3239). 

(44)  Different  fragments  (3240)  of  stone  points. 

(45)  Fragments  of  wooden  vessels  (3241). 

(46)  A  skull  with  the  lower  jaw  (3242). 


Scraper  of  silicified  slate. 


Arrow  blade  of  white  chalcedony.  Scraper-like  implement  of  silicified  slate. 
All  specimens  from  Kuril  Lake. 


(47)  Skeletal  bones  (3243). 

(48)  Two  separate  bones  (3244). 

(49)  Two  bone  implements  (3245). 

(50)  Pottery  fragments  (3246). 

(51)  Text-figure  61  (3247),  a,  b.  An  arrow  blade  of  white  chalcedony.  General  length, 
67  mm.;  length  of  the  stem,  31  mm.;  greatest  width,  23  mm.;  greatest  thickness,  7  mm. 

(52)  Eighteen  fragments  of  stone  implements  (3248-3265). 

(53)  Text-figure  62  (3269).  A  scraper-like  implement  of  silicified  slate,  evidently  remade 
from  a  polished  adze,  as  shown  by  the  polished  upper  part.  Length,  52  mm.;  greatest  width,  32 
mm.;  height  of  the  working  edge,  18  mm.;  greatest  thickness,  23  mm. 

(54)  An  obsidian  arrow  point  (3280). 

(55)  Two  stone  scrapers  (3298,  3299). 

(56)  Three  Japanese  coins  of  the  eleventh  century  (3306-3308).  See  above,  p.  37. 

(57)  Three  fragments  of  ornamented  bone  implements  (3309). 

(58)  A  stone  celt  (3311). 

(59)  A  scraper-like  or  some  other  not  completed  implement  of  quartzite.  Greatest  length, 
45  mm.;  greatest  width,  48  mm.;  thickness  of  the  working  end,  18  mm.  Judging  by  the  great 
thickness  as  compared  with  the  length  and  width  it  probably  may  be  a  rejected  piece,  due  to 
malformation.  Text-figure  53. 

(60)  A  small  arrow  blade  of  reddish-brown  flint.  Length,  31  mm.;  greatest  width,  10  mm.; 
thickness,  3  mm.  (2967).  Text-figure  55. 

(61)  A  lance  blade  or  a  knife  of  greatly  silicified  slate.  One  side  is  more  convex,  as  shown  by 
the  transverse  section.  Length,  141  mm.;  greatest  width,  41  mm.;  greatest  thickness,  12  mm. 
(2958).  Text-figure  56. 


Archeological  Remains  from  the  Kamchatka  Excavations 


63 


(62)  Not  finished  blade,  evidently  intended  to  be  subsequently  elaborated  into  an  implement 
of  a  specialized  type.  It  might  also  serve  as  a  scraper.  Of  greatly  silicified  slate.  Length,  98  mm.; 
greatest  width,  50  mm.;  greatest  thickness,  28  mm.  (3029).  Text-figure  57. 

(63)  A  scraper  of  dark  gray  flint;  one  side  is  flat  with  some  chippings  from  one  edge;  the 
other  side  is  regularly  convex  with  broad  chippings.  The  working  edge  is  rounded.  Length, 
41  mm.;  greatest  width,  26  mm.;  thickness  9  mm.  (3075).  Text-figure  58. 

(64)  A  stone  lamp  of  sandstone  with  an  ear  for  tying  it  to  the  sledge  or  canoe  when  traveling 
or  hunting.  4/9  natural  size  (3140).  Text-figure  64. 

(65)  A  stone  lamp  for  the  dwelling,  of  porphyrite,  1/3  natural  size  (3141).  Text-figure  65. 

I 

As  stated  above,  we  left  the  Kuril  Lake  on  August  16 — a  quiet  calm  day. 
We  crossed  the  lake,  on  the  right  being  the  rocky  almost  triangular  Alaid  Island, 
where  millions  of  birds  were  crying  and  rioting.  The  Japanese  writer  R.  Torri1 
refers  to  a  Kurilian  tradition,  according  to  which  in  ancient  times  a  high  mountain 
rose  where  we  have  now  the  Kuril  Lake.  It  was  a  handsome  lady,  and  the  neigh¬ 
boring  summits,  jealous  of  her,  made  her  life  unbearable  by  mockery  and  sneer¬ 
ing,  so  she  decided  to  leave  Kamchatka  and  settled  in  the  open  sea.  This  became 
a  small  rocky  island,  Alaid  (in  Aino,  Chachakotan) ,  located  to  the  northwest  of  the 
Paramushiri  Island,  and  Kuril  Lake  formed  in  the  cavity.  Baron  Dittmar  refers 
to  another  variant  of  the  Kamchadal  tradition  concerning  the  origin  of  the  Kuril 
Lake.  There  was  formerly  a  volcanic  summit  Alaid,  which  disliked  its  location 
and  wandered  over  to  the  sea.  In  the  cavity  left  by  the  mountain,  the  Kuril  Lake 
originated.  The  mountain,  however,  left  a  piece  of  rock  in  the  middle  of  the  lake 
which  the  Kamchadal  call  Heart-Rock  or  Navel-Rock.  Kuril  Lake,  according  to 
Dittmar,  is  the  second  greatest  lake  of  Kamchatka,  Kronotzkoye  Lake  being 
larger.2  Geologists  explain  the  origin  of  the  Kuril  Lake  by  the  sinking  of  an  old 
crater.  The  lake  now  lies  200  meters  above  sea-level  and  its  depth  in  some  places 
reaches  300  meters.3 

The  trip  back  to  the  seashore  took  us  less  than  a  day.  Our  boats  were 
speeding  and  leaping  over  the  rocks  of  the  stony  bed  of  the  Osernaya  River  so  that 
we  had  to  use  poles  as  brakes  in  order  not  to  be  overturned,  particularly  on  the 
dangerous  curves.  Hunters,  who  come  in  spring  on  dog  sledges  to  the  Kuril  Lake 
to  kill  bears,  make  quite  primitive  boats  of  twig-frames  covered  with  bear  skins 
in  order  to  transport  skins  to  the  mouth  of  the  Osernaya  River.  These  skin-boats 
easily  glide  over  the  rocky  rapids. 

As  I  feared,  the  Government  steamer  had  left  for  Petropavlovsk  a  day  before 
we  reached  the  shore.  It  did  not  stop  at  Osernaya,  passing  from  the  western  strait 
to  Petropavlovsk  through  the  Kuril  Strait.  The  fall  storms  had  begun  in  the 
Okhotsk  Sea  and  it  was  dangerous  for  the  steamer  to  approach  the  coast,  which 
has  no  harbor.  We  might  have  had  to  remain  in  Osernaya  for  the  winter  if  it 
had  not  been  for  the  administrators  of  the  saltery  and  cannery,  who  were  waiting  for 
a  special  steamer  before  closing  the  plants.  They  had  already  sent  off  on  a  freight 
steamer  the  imported  laborers  and  salted  and  canned  goods.  On  the  next  day  the 

1  Torii,  Etudes  Archeologiques  et  Ethnologiques :  Les  Aino  des  lies  Kouriles,  Journal  College  of  Science,  Imperial 
University  of  Tokyo,  vol.  xlii,  Tokyo,  1919-1921,  p.  39. 

2  Carl  von  Dittmar,  Travels  and  Sojourn  in  Kamchatka  in  1851-1855,  Part  1,  St.  Petersburg,  1901,  p.  684  (in  Russian). 

3  See  The  Kamchatka  Expedition  of  F.  P.  Riaboushinsky,  Zoological  Division,  Part  I;  P.  J.  Schmidt,  Moscow,  1916, 
The  Investigations  of  the  Zoological  Division  in  Kamchatka  in  1908-1909,  Chapter  xii,  written  by  Dr.  A.  N.  Dershavin,  one  of 
Professor  Schmidt’s  assistants. 


64 


Archeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


longed-for  smoke  of  a  steamer  appeared  on  the  horizon,  but  it  cruised  in  the 
sea  many  miles  away,  as  it  was  not  safe  to  come  near  the  shallow  shore 
in  the  turbulent  weather.  After  three  days  of  waiting  the  storm  subsided,  the 
steamer  came  nearer  and  a  large  boat  was  despatched  to  take  us  aboard. 
High  waves  almost  capsized  the  boat  and  finally  did  at  a  distance  of  a  few  feet 
from  the  shore.  We  saw  with  horror  that  the  four  sailors  were  covered  by  the  boat, 
but  in  a  moment  they  appeared  from  beneath  it  with  the  rope  in  their  hands  and 
dragged  the  boat  to  the  shore.  When  they  had  dried  themselves  in  one  of  the 
houses  we  trusted  ourselves  and  our  collection  from  Kuril  Lake  to  the  frail  boat 
and  after  two  hours  of  struggle  with  the  sea  we  mounted  the  rope-ladder  of  the 
steamer.  Never  before  have  I  had  such  a  stormy  sea  passage.  After  5  days  of 
sickness,  sailing  through  the  Kuril  Strait,  we  reached  Petropavlovsk,  which  we 
left  for  Vladivostok  several  days  later  on  the  last  mail  steamer  of  the  season.  The 
following  remarks  concerning  the  finds  made  on  the  Kuril  Lake  and  the  form  of 
sites  discovered  in  Kamchatka  in  general  are  necessary. 

From  the  remnants  of  objects  of  Japanese  culture  no  inference  can  be  made  as 
to  the  age  of  the  sites.  As  we  saw  before  (see  p.  62)  Japanese  objects,  such  as 
coins,  pieces  of  porcelain  cups  and  metallic  artifacts,  might  have  reached  Kamchatka 
at  a  very  early  date.  Krasheninnikoff  says  (I,  p.  48)  that  the  old  Kamchadal 
knew  the  art  of  hammering  fragments  of  metal.  They  did  not  temper  iron  but, 
placing  it  cold  on  a  stone,  forged  it  with  another  stone  instead  of  a  hammer.  If 
the  eye  of  a  needle  broke,  they  flattened  the  broken  end  and  drilled  a  new  eye 
with  another  needle. 

According  to  Steller  (p.  320),  the  Kamchadal  paid  homage  to  pieces  of  iron 
obtained  from  the  Kurilians.  The  iron  was  set  up  on  a  pole  in  front  of  the  dwelling 
as  proof  of  the  wealth  and  special  importance  of  its  owner.  Krasheninnikoff  also 
states  (II,  p.  97)  that  every  Kamchadal  possessing  a  fragment  of  iron  was  deemed 
rich  and  lucky. 

The  Kamchadal,  now  Russianized,  no  longer  live  in  subterranean  houses, 
replacing  the  same  by  Russian  block  houses,  or  by  huts  of  the  Yakut  type,  also 
introduced  by  the  Russians.  According  to  the  descriptions  of  Krasheninnikoff  and 
Steller,  the  ancient  Kamchadal  earth-hut  had  no  entrance  room  such  as  the  Koryak 
use  in  their  underground  dwellings  during  the  summer.  The  Kamchadal  earth- 
hut  was  only  a  winter  dwelling.  Its  smoke  hole  in  the  ceiling  served  at  the  same 
time  as  a  window  and  door,  through  which  one  entered  by  descending  along  a  log 
with  notches  or  holes.  This  was  the  only  entrance  opening,  but  there  was,  however, 
an  underground  passage  in  the  shape  of  a  narrow  channel,  for  the  draught,  which 
started  from  the  hearth  and  came  out  of  the  house  at  the  side.  Women,  children 
and  the  so-called  transformed  men  used  to  go  in  and  out  through  this  passage. 
From  the  illustrations  of  the  excavated  pits  of  ancient  Kamchadal  dwellings  we 
see  that  the  channel-passage  was  an  indispensable  part  of  their  habitations,  and 
we  see  also  from  illustrations  that  it  could  be  directed  to  different  cardinal  points. 
We  may  only  surmise  the  reasons  for  such  a  diversity.  We  know  that  many  of 


Archaeological  Remains  from  the  Kamchatka  Excavations 


65 


the  Siberian  tribes,  for  instance  the  Yakut  and  Buryat,  have  the  entrance  of  their 
dwellings  faced  to  the  east,  where  the  sun  rises.  The  sun  is  regarded  as  a  benevo¬ 
lent  deity  and  it  is  advisable  to  have  the  door  facing  the  sun  in  order  to  get  its 
benefits.  The  back  of  the  dwelling  is  turned  to  the  west,  the  abode  of  evil  spirits. 
The  entrance  of  tents  of  nomadic  peoples  (Chukchee,  Koryak,  Tungus,  Yukaghir 
and  others)  faces  the  east  for  the  same  reason.  On  the  other  hand  the  door  of 
dwellings  of  maritime  peoples  faces  the  sea  in  order  to  give  free  access  to  sea- 
mammals,  as  though  they  were  visitors.  For  the  same  reason  the  entrance  of 
summer  tents  of  Siberian  fishers  faces  the  river.  According  to  Professor  Petri 
the  dwellings  of  the  neolithic  people  of  the  Baikal  region,  the  remnants  of  which 
he  discovered,  had  entrances  facing  the  south,  the  side  of  the  sun’s  highest  stand¬ 
ing.  Thus  we  can  comprehend  why  the  channel  passage  of  the  old  Kamchadal 
dwelling  faced,  in  some  cases,  the  sea,  in  others  the  lake  or  a  river  in  accordance 
with  food,  which  one  or  another  water  basin  supplied. 

The  shape  of  the  pits  was  mostly  oblong  rectangular.  On  the  Kuril  Lake  the 
pits  were  more  or  less  quadrangular.  The  northern  pits  on  the  Kavran  and  Kulki 
Rivers  were  almost  circular  in  form,  thus  nearing  the  shape  of  underground  dwell¬ 
ings  of  the  Koryak.  The  channel-passage  is  fitted  in  some  cases  to  the  middle  of 
the  oblong  side  of  the  pit  and  in  others  to  the  middle  of  the  transverse  side. 

The  largest  pit,  34  by  3,0  feet,  was  excavated  on  the  Nalacheva  Cape  and  the 
smallest,  16  by  15  feet,  on  the  Nalacheva  Lake.  The  length  of  the  channel  passage 
ranges  between  7  and  16  feet.  With  few  exceptions,  the  channel-passage  is  longer, 
the  larger  the  pit. 

As  the  present  remains  of  the  pits  of  the  former  pit-dwellings  are  undoubtedly 
smaller  than  the  former  dwellings  themselves,  on  account  of  earth  and  sand 
deposited  by  winds  and  accumulated  mold  from  decayed  grass,  we  may  draw  the 
conclusion  that  the  ancient  Kamchadal  population  was  rather  numerous  and  Kam¬ 
chatka  was  densely  inhabited.  The  pits  are  very  near  each  other,  and  the  shores  of  the 
Nalacheva  Lake,  as  well  as  other  places  in  Kamchatka,  are  covered  with  them. 
According  to  Krasheninnikoff,  each  pit-dwelling  sheltered  several  related  families. 
Often  several  pit-dwellings  were  located  in  one  place,  forming  a  village  surrounded 
by  earthen  walls  and  trenches. 

The  Kamchadal  pit-dwellings  were  used  only  during  the  winter.  In  the 
summer  the  Kamchadal  lived  in  huts  on  piles  several  meters  high.  They  were 
ascended  by  means  of  notched  logs  which  could  be  drawn  up  to  the  platform  of 
the  huts.  At  present  these  elevated  huts  serve  as  storehouses.  In  some  places, 
however,  they  are  still  used  as  summer  dwellings  (see  Plate  4,  B).1 

In  the  pit  excavated  on  the  Osernaya  River  near  the  Kuril  Lake,  no  traces  of 
wooden  posts  were  discovered.  This  may  be  regarded  as  a  witness  of  the  great 
age  of  the  pit — the  posts  having  decayed  to  such  a  degree  that  no  trace  of  them  is 
left. 

1  The  summer  pile-dwelling  is  also  in  use  among  the  Gilyak  but  its  posts  are  not  as  high  as  those  of  the  Kamchadal 
pile-dwelling.  The  pile-dwelling,  as  an  adoption  from  Siberia,  is  also  reported  from  some  places  in  Alaska  (see  H.  P.  Steensby, 
An  Anthropo-geographical  Study  of  the  Eskimo  Culture ,  p.  188).  The  storehouse  on  posts  is  known  everywhere  in  Siberia, 
as  well  as  in  North  America. 


66 


Archaeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


According  to  Krasheninnikoff  the  ancient  Kamchadal  had  still  another  kind 
of  summer  dwelling,  the  superterrene  grass  lodge  called  bashabash.  Unfor¬ 
tunately  he  does  not  state  its  shape — whether  it  was  of  a  conical  or  hemispherical 
type.  The  bashabash  was  put  up  at  the  fishing  places  near  the  dwellings  on  piles 
and  served  chiefly  as  a  place  for  cooking,  which  could  not  be  done  on  the  wooden 
platforms  of  the  pile-dwellings. 

White  clay,  pieces  of  which  were  found  in  some  of  the  excavations,  was 
eaten  by  the  Kamchadal,  according  to  Krasheninnikoff  (II,  p.  180),  as  a  remedy 
for  diarrhoea.  Bogoras  relates  (The  Chukchee,  p.  200)  that  the  reindeer  Chukchee, 
the  Koryak  and  Lamut  in  Kamchatka,  occasionally  use  as  food  a  kind  of  white 
clay  called  by  them  nute-ecen  (earth-fat).  The  Kamchadal  called  the  white  clay 
“ earth  sour  cream.”  Sternberg  tells  ( The  Gilyak,  p.  17)  of  a  Gilyak  favorite  dish 
for  treating  guests,  called  moss,  which  consists  of  a  mixture  of  the  gluey  broth  of 
fish  skins,  seal’s  fat,  berries,  rice,  and  sometimes  of  minced  dried  fish,  to  which 
the  solution  of  white  clay  is  added. 

It  must  be  noted  that  the  use  of  some  kinds  of  clay  as  food  is  not  limited  to 
Siberia  alone.  The  eating  of  edible  clay  has  been  observed  among  certain  Guiana 
Indians,1  Carib  and  Antillean  islanders,2  and  among  the  people  of  Georgia  and 
the  Carolinas.3  Deniker  refers  to  many  other  places  where  the  habit  of  eating 
certain  earthy  substances — kaolin,  clay,  limestone — h^s  been  observed.  He  calls 
this  habit  Geophagy  and  explains  it  by  the  need  of  supplying  the  needed  mineral 
substances  (calcareous  or  alkaline  salts).4 

1  W.  E.  Roth,  An  Introductory  Study  of  the  Arts,  Craft  and  Customs  of  the  Guiana  Indians,  Annual  Report  of  the 
Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  1924). 

2  William  Sheldom,  Brief  Account  of  the  Caribs  who  Inhabited  the  Antilles,  Transactions  of  the  American  Antiquarian 
Society,  I,  1820,  pp.  365-435). 

3  Charlotte  D.  Gower,  The  Northern  and  Southern  Affiliations  of  Antillean  Culture,  Memoirs  of  the  American  Anthro¬ 
pological  Association,  Number  35,  1927,  p.  26. 

4J.  Deniker,  The  Races  of  Man,  London,  1900,  p.  145. 


CHAPTER  VII 

STONE  LAMPS 


I  discovered  36  stone  lamps  in  excavations  in  Kamchatka.  Some  of  them 
were  broken.  All  the  types  of  ancient  Kamchadal  stone  lamps  are  shown  in 
Plates  14  and  15  and  text-figures  64  to  66.  They  are  not  remarkable  for  great 
diversity  as  to  size  and  form.  I  mentioned  Aleut  lamps1  longer  than  310  mm., 
and  one  lamp  1  meter  long.  There  is  in  the  U.  S.  National  Museum  at 
Washington  an  unusually  large  stone  lamp  (No.  90476)  from  Kodiak  Island  which 
weighs  67J^  pounds.2  An  Eskimo  stone  lamp  43  inches  long  (i.  e.,  somewhat 


64.  Stone  lamp  of  sandstone. 

65.  Stone  lamp  of  porphyrite. 

66.  Stone  lamp  of  andesitic  lava,  in  process  of  manufacture. 

All  of  Kuril  Lake. 


longer  than  a  meter),  weighing  about  50  pounds  is  in  the  American  Museum  of 
Natural  History  of  New  York.  Dr.  Stefanson  saw  several  larger  lamps,  but  was 
unable  to  purchase  them  from  their  owners.3 

The  Kamchadal  stone  lamps  show  the  following  shapes:  circular,  elliptical, 
egg-like  and  sad-iron  in  outline.  No  lamps  of  rectangular  form,  like  those  of  the 
Aleut,  and  clam-shell  shaped  or  crescentic  in  outline,  like  those  of  the  Eskimo  of 
Cumberland  Gulf  or  Point  Barrow,  were  excavated  in  Kamchatka. 

Lamp  No.  3158  shows  the  cavity  rudely  picked  out  with  a  hammerstone  in 
the  process  of  manufacture.  All  the  other  illustrations  of  lamps  show  them  in  a 
finished  shape  and  polished.  The  straight  rims  of  some  lamps  were  chiseled  out 
with  hard  quartz  chisels  (see  No.  2183).  Most  of  the  lamps  are  flat-bottomed,  so 
they  stand  without  support.  The  lamp  was  put  on  a  wooden  stand  in  a  somewhat 

1  W.  Jochelson,  Archaeological  Investigations  in  the  Aleutian  Islands,  p.  74. 

2  Walter  Hough,  The  Lamp  of  the  Eskimo,  Annual  Report,  U.  S.  National  Museum  for  the  year  1897,  Washington, 
1898,  pp.  1027-1057. 

3  See  Vilhjamur  Stefansson,  My  Life  with  the  Eskimo,  New  York,  1913,  p.  249. 


67 


68 


Archeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


slanting  position  (in  the  sad¬ 
iron  shape  the  narrow  end  was 
lower)  so  that  the  tallow  or 
blubber  could  run  down  to  the 
wick  from  the  heat  of  the  flame. 
The  Kamchadal  used  bear’s  tal¬ 
low  or  seal’s  blubber,  and  also 
fish  oil  for  lighting  purposes.  The 
present  Kamchadal  sometimes 
still  use  stone  lamps  for  lighting, 
but  often  a  tin  box,  iron  frying 
pan,  or  a  clam-shell  substitutes 
for  the  stone  lamp.  In  order  to 
be  relieved  of  the  sharp  odor, 
smoke  and  soot  of  the  burning  lamp  the  present  Kamchadal  put  over  the 
lamp  a  funnel  made  of  birch  bark,  upside  down,  the  upper  tube  of  which  is  led 
outside  through  the  ceiling  (see  figures  67,  68) -1  The  wick  consists  of  a 
bunch  of  dry  grass,  moss  or  of  rag  placed  at  the  edge  of  the  slanting  lamp.  At 
present  the  Kamchadal  women  make  wicks  of  plaited  nettle  threads.  Like 
the  Aleut  lamps,  the  Kamchadal  stone  lamps  had  no  bridges  or  special  grooves 
for  the  wicks,  which  we  find  in  the  Eskimo  lamps.  The  only  use  of  the  Kamchadal 
lamp  was  for  lighting  purposes.  The  Kamchadal  did  not  warm  themselves  over 
the  lamp,  like  the  Aleut,  nor  cook  like  the  Eskimo.  The  Kamchadal  had  sufficient 
wood  for  making  a  fire  when  necessary,  and  their  hearths  warmed  their  earth-huts 
and  served  for  frying  meat  and  cooking  vegetables  and  soups  in  clay  vessels.  The 
lamp  was  lighted  from  the  hearth,  which  was  usually  always  burning.  The  hearth 
was  covered  with  ashes  for  the  night,  so  that  the  smoldering  fire  might  not  be 
extinguished  during  the  night.  The  fire  of  the  hearth  was  looked  on  as  the  protec¬ 
tor  of  the  dwelling,  and  it  was  regarded  as  an  unhappy  omen  should  it  go  out. 
Once  a  year,  however,  at  the  beginning  of  winter,  the  family  fire  was  put  out,  the 
hearth  cleaned  from  old  ashes,  and  a  new  fire  started  by  the  drill  and  sacred  fire- 
board.  The  burning  stone  lamps  were  also  extinguished  and  lighted  again  from 
the  hearth’s  new  fire. 

The  Kamchadal  lamps  were  made  mostly  from  hard  rock  material,  usually 
varieties  of  quartz.  No  lamps  of  soapstone,  material  in  use  among  the  Eskimo, 
were  found  in  the  Kamchatka  excavations;  neither  were  any  of  bone,  of  which 
the  ancient  Aleut  made  lamps.  As  the  wick  was  placed  by  the  Kamchadal  at  the 
edge  of  the  lamp  the  borders  of  a  bone  lamp  would  have  been  burned  off  by  the 
flame. 

The  cavity  for  oil  or  fat  in  some  Kamchadal  lamps  represents  a  flat  bottom 
with  straight  sides,  while  in  others  the  bottom  is  rounded  (see  Plates  14, 15). 

1  Figures  67  and  68  are  taken  from  Dr.  W.  N.  Tyushov’s  book:  Along  the  Western  Coast  of  Kamchatka,  Memoirs  of 
the  Imperial  Russian  Geographical  Society  on  General  Geography,  vol.  xxxvxi,  No.  2,  St.  Petersburg,  1906,  in  Russian, 
figures  28  (p.  341)  and  29  (p.  342). 


CHAPTER  VIII 

POTTERY 

METHODS  OF  COOKING  FOOD  OF  THE  ANCIENT  KAMCHADAL 

At  present  the  Kamchadal  do  not  make  clay  pots.  Until  recently  the  opinion 
was  widespread  that  they  were  not  familiar  with  pottery,  even  in  former  times. 
Steller1  and  Krasheninnikoff,2  in  speaking  of  the  ancient  Kamchadal  method  of 
cooking  food,  mention  only  boiling  in  wooden  troughs  by  means  of  red-hot  stones, 
and  there  is  nowhere  in  the  writings  of  these  authors  a  reference  to  clay  vessels. 
Schrenk3  considers  the  absence  of  pottery  among  the  Kamchadal  as  proved.  He 
contends  also  that  pottery  was  unknown  to  any  of  the  so-called  Palse-Asiatic 
peoples,  with  the  exception  of  the  Eskimo,  whom  he  classes  among  them. 

We  wish  to  clear  up  the  contradiction  between  the  statements  of  some  trav¬ 
elers,  that  the  old  Kamchadal  cooked  food  in  wooden  troughs  by  means  of  red-hot 
stones  and  our  archaeological  finds  of  clay  vessels. 

Both  means  of  cooking  food,  by  boiling  it  in  wooden  troughs  and  in  clay  pots, 
were  used.  Pottery  vessels  were  used  in  the  permanent  winter  dwellings,  while 
wooden  troughs  were  used  when  traveling  in  winter  or  moving  to  fishing  places  in 
summer.  Clay  pots,  being  light  breakable  vessels,  were  not  carried  along,  either 
by  dog-teams  or  in  canoes. 

We  must  admit  that  Krasheninnikoff  and  Steller  had  no  chance  to  observe 
cooking  in  clay  pots,  or  to  see  the  Kamchadal  pottery,  although  that  may  appear 
improbable,  when  considering  their  long  stay  in  Kamchatka  and  their  ample  and 
interesting  description  of  the  life  of  the  Kamchadal  in  all  other  respects.  As  to 
the  cooking  in  wooden  troughs,  both  Krasheninnikoff  (I,  p.  362;  II,  pp.  38,  45,  46 
and  74)  and  Steller  (p.  322  and  App.,  p.  36)  describe  in  detail  how  fish  and  meat 
of  land  and  sea  animals  were  cooked  with  edible  roots  and  other  vegetables. 

R.  Torii  says  that  the  Sakhalin  Ainos  made  clay  pots  and  at  the  same  time 
used  dug-out  trunks  for  boiling  meat  and  fish  in  water  heated  by  red-hot  stones. 
He  relates  the  same  concerning  the  Kurilian  Ainos.  While  moving  for  fishing  and 
hunting  purposes  from  one  island  to  another  and  not  being  able  to  carry  with  them 
breakable  pottery,  they  cooked  their  meals  by  means  of  hot  stones  put  in  wooden 
troughs  filled  with  water.4 

1  G.  W.  Steller,  Beschreibung  von  dem  Lande  Kamtschatka,  Frankfurt  und  Leipzig,  1774. 

2  S.  P.  Krasheninnikoff,  Description  of  the  Land  Kamchatka,  vols.  i-ii,  1819,  St.  Petersburg  (in  Russian). 

3  Leopold  von  Schrenk,  Reisen  und  Forschungen  im  Amur-Lande,  Band  ii,  St.  Petersburg,  1887,  p.  139. 

4  See  R.  Torii,  Etude  Archeologiques  et  Ethnologiques:  Lea  Aino  des  lies  Kouriles,  Journal  College  of  Science  Im¬ 
perial  University  of  Tokyo,  vol.  xlii,  Tokyo,  1919-1921  p.  194. 

The  method  of  boiling  water  by  means  of  red-hot  stones  is  known  among  many  peoples — the  Eskimo,  Polynesians, 
New  Zealanders  and  others.  The  Kamchadal  of  central  Kamchatka,  says  Bogoras  (The  Chukchee,  p.  194),  even  now  extract 
fish-oil  by  trying  out  the  fish  in  a  dug-out  with  heated  stones.  The  same  was  told  by  Dittmar  of  the  Kamchadal  of  the 
village  Kluchi  on  the  Kamchatka  River  (Carl  von  Dittmar,  Reisen  und  Auftenthalt  in  Kamtschatka  in  den  Jahren  1851-1855, 
p.  326,  St.  Petersburg,  1890,  Part  x).  In  the  work  of  Dr.  Aurel  Krause  (Die  Tlinkit  Indianer,  Ergebnisse  einer  Reise  nach  der 
Nordwestkiiste  von  Amerika  und  der  Beringstrasse,  Jena,  1885,  p.  178)  there  is  an  illustration  showing  how  the  Tlinkit  get 
fish-oil  from  the  salmon  Thaleichtys  pacificus  by  boiling  it  in  a  dug-out  heated  with  stones.  In  northern  European  Russia 
and  Siberia  beer  is  prepared  by  the  same  method  (see  L.  S.  Berg,  The  Discovery  of  Kamchatka  and  Bering's  Expeditions, 
Leningrad  and  Moscow,  1924,  p.  12,  in  Russian). 


69 


70 


Archeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


REVIEW  OF  THE  RELATION  OF  THE  AINOS  TO  THE  KAMCHADAL 

As  the  Kamchadal  pottery  is  closely  connected  with  and  probably  adopted  from 
the  Ainos,  it  will  be  of  interest  to  review  the  prehistoric  and  historic  relations  of  the 
Ainos  to  the  Kamchadal. 

As  admitted  by  many  anthropologists,  the  Ainos  are  of  a  stock  akin  to  the 
races  of  Europe,  with  some  slight  Mongolian  characteristics  adopted  in  Asia. 
The  route  by  which  the  Ainos  passed  from  the  west  to  the  east  is  not  known,  but 
probably  they  are  a  branch  of  the  dolichocephalic  Aryans  Din-lin,  mentioned  in 
the  Chinese  annals,  who  afterward  became  mixed  with  Turkish  and  Mongolian 
tribes. 

About  4,000  years  b.c.  the  whole  Japanese  archipelago  as  far  north  as  Yezo  was 
occupied  by  Ainos.  The  population  was,  however,  sparse.  The  Ainos  were  a 
genuine  continental  tribe.  They  had  no  boats  and,  as  Torii  suggests,  crossed  the 
Korean  Strait  on  rafts,  from  the  continent  of  Asia.  There  was  probably  more 
than  one  wave  of  Ainos  from  the  continent.  Then  Mongoloid  invaders  came  from 
the  continent.  The  first  wave  of  Tunguso-Mongolic  conquerors  appeared  in 
Japan  between  2000  and  1000  b.c.  They  forced  out  the  southern  Ainos  to 
Yezo.  The  second  wave  of  Tungus  reached  Yezo  in  the  fifth  or  sixth  century 
a.d.  They  were  already  partly  mixed  with  Ainos,  and  these  mixed-blooded  invad¬ 
ers  forced  the  Yezo  Ainos  farther  to  the  north,  and  in  their  turn  the  Yezo  Ainos 
forced  their  kin  of  the  first  wave  to  proceed  to  the  Kurilian  Islands.  A  part  of 
them  attained  in  their  migration  the  southern  part  of  the  Sakhalin  Island,  settled 
there  and  continued  to  make  pottery  of  the  primitive  type . 

After  a  certain  period  of  peace  the  Sakhalin  Ainos  were  attacked  by  a  second 
wave  of  Ainos  coming  from  Yezo,  but  in  view  of  the  danger  of  being  overpowered 
by  the  Orok-Tungus  and  Gilyak  coming  from  the  north,  both  waves  of  the  Sakhalin 
Ainos  made  a  common  stand  and  became  consolidated. 

Those  Ainos  of  Yezo,  who  did  not  leave  for  the  Kurilian  Islands  or  Sakhalin 
and  who  were  not  at  the  same  time  subdued  and  mixed  with  the  Mongoloid 
invaders,  took  refuge  in  the  mountainous  and  less  favorable  localities  of  the  island. 

Before  the  Tunguso-Mongols  reached  the  middle  of  the  Japanese  Archipelago, 
the  southern  islands  (Liu-Kiu  and  Kiu-Siu),  inhabited  by  Ainos,  were  attacked  by 
southern  invaders  of  Indonesian  origin.  Advancing  later  to  the  north  they  met 
with  the  resistance  of  the  Tungus  and  the  mixed-blooded  Aino-Tungus  population, 
and  finally  entered  as  a  third  element  in  the  ethnic  compound  of  the  Japanese 
nation.  A  certain  infusion  of  Chinese  blood  may  also  be  mentioned. 

This  somatological  amalgamation  of  the  Japanese  people  is  shown  in  the 
results  of  the  anthropological  work  by  Professor  Matsumura  when  observed  by 
provinces.  Although  he  measured  a  selected  class  of  the  Japanese  population, 
students  (males  and  females)  of  universities  and  normal  schools,  nevertheless  we 
see  that,  in  provinces  where  the  Aino  element  may  be  supposed  to  lead,  the  doli¬ 
chocephalic  index  and  a  lower  stature  predominate.1 

1  Akira  Matsumura,  On  the  Cephalic  Index  and  Stature  of  the  Japanese  and  their  Local  Difference:  A  Contribution  to 
the  Physical  Anthropology  of  Japan,  Anthropology  Institute,  Tokyo  Imperial  University,  Tokyo,  1925. 


Pottery 


71 


We  have  said  before  that  the  Ainos  were  not  acquainted  with  navigation, 
coming  to  the  islands  on  rafts.  Later  they  learned  to  build  clumsy  boats  from 
the  Japanese — not  from  the  Indonesians,  who  are  expert  navigators;  neither  did 
they  adopt  the  skin  boat  from  the  Chukchee  and  Koryak.  As  to  shape,  their 
dug-outs  and  boats  do  not  resemble  the  canoes  of  the  Kamchadal. 


Figures  69-74  show  objects  found  in  1899  by  Dr.  Torii  in  a  neolithic  site  on  the  island  Shumashir. 

Fig.  69.  Fragment  of  a  bone  comb  ornamented  with  interwoven  curves,  reminding  one  of  the  decoration 
of  the  Kamchadal  bone  belt  buckle  of  Plate  16,  figure  8. 

Fig.  70.  Bone  comb  resembling  the  Kamchadal  comb  of  Plate  16,  figure  9.  I  am  inclined  to  regard 
them  both  as  implements  for  making  decorative  paralel  lines  when  the  clay  is  still  wet.  It  may  be 
that  they  served  both  objects:  as  hair  combs  and  implements  for  decoration  of  pottery. 

Fig.  71.  Fragment  of  a  bone  comb  with  broken-off  teeth. 

Fig.  72.  Half  of  bone  belt  buckle.  The  decorating  interwoven  curves  are  much  larger  than  on  the 
preceding  buckles,  both  Kamchadal  and  Kurilian.  Five  drilled  holes  along  the  broken  edge  were 
intended,  as  it  seems,  to  bind  together  the  two  broken  halves. 

Fig.  73.  Bone  buckle  of  smaller  size,  ornamented  by  irregular  circles  and  straight  lines. 

Fig.  74.  Bone  case  for  fishing  hooks. 

While  the  Ainos  had  adopted  nothing  from  the  East-Siberian  tribes  as  far 
as  concerns  navigation,  they  made  some  cultural  acquisitions  from  the  Kamchadal 
or  were  influenced  by  them  in  some  respects.  The  Kurilians  weave  grass  baskets 
of  the  same  kind  and  material  and  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Kamchadal  do.  The 
same  is  true  of  wooden  utensils.  On  the  other  hand  the  Kamchadal  adopted  from 
the  Kurilians  the  mode  of  manufacture  of  bone  combs,  belt  buckles  and  orna¬ 
mental  motives.  The  Aino  as  well  as  the  Kamchadal  women  use  the  head-band 
for  carrying  children  on  the  back. 


72 


Archaeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


Some  Kamchadal  and  Kurilian  objects  and  their  decorations  are  shown  for 
the  purpose  of  comparison.  Plate  16  shows  objects  found  by  the  author  while 
digging  on  the  shores  of  the  Kuril  Lake  (see  description  of  this  plate). 

According  to  Torii  ( Les  Ainou  des  lies  Kouriles,  p.  277)  the  wooden  combs  of 
the  present  Aino-women  resemble  very  much  the  bone  comb  shown  in  figure  69. 
Chamberlain  says  ( Things  Japanese,  p.  33)  that  ornamentations  on  pottery  were 
made  by  the  Ainos  with  a  wooden  comb,  stamp  or  pointed  s.tick.  This  is  just 
the  same  as  I  concluded  concerning  the  combs  and  other  instruments  illustrated 
on  Plate  16. 

To  return  to  the  proper  subject  of  this  chapter,  the  pottery.  According  to 
the  investigations  of  Torii,  the  Kurilian  women  of  the  island  Shikotan  manufac¬ 
tured  pots,  jars,  saucepans  and  plates  from  clay  tempered  with  sand  and  chopped 
grass  as  late  as  the  last  century.  About  three  generations  ago  they  abandoned 
pottery  making,  using  Japanese  and  Russian  iron  vessels  of  every  kind. 

Torii  investigated  numerous  neolithic  sites  on  the  Shumushur  and  Paramushir 
Islands,  and  everywhere  he  found  remains  of  pottery  of  the  same  primitive  kind, 
which  was  in  use  the  last  time  among  the  northern  Kurilians.  On  the  contrary, 
the  Kurilians  of  the  second  wave  left  on  the  southern  islands,  Kunashiri  and  Iturup, 
remains  of  pottery  of  greater  perfection.  In  the  same  period  the  Ainos  of  the* 
second  wave  who  remained  in  Yezo  abandoned  the  manufacture  of  pottery,  getting 
all  kinds  of  wooden  and  iron  vessels  from  Japan. 

That  part  of  the  Ainos  who  were  forced  out  from  Yezo  by  the  second  wave  of 
Japanese  Ainos  and  went  to  the  island  Sakhalin,  instead  of  the  Kurilian  Islands, 
continued  to  manufacture  their  primitive  pottery.  The  second  wave  of  Ainos  who 
came  to  Sakhalin  from  Yezo  brought  with  them  metal  vessels.  The  first  wave 
being  assimilated  with  them  ceased  to  manufacture  pottery,  except  vessels  neces¬ 
sary  for  religious  ceremonies.  We  know  that  practices  connected  with  the  cult 
persist  everywhere  long  after  they  have  been  eliminated  in  ordinary  fife.  The 
remains  of  this  ceremonial  pottery  are  identical  with  the  remains  of  pottery  of  the 
Kurilian  manufacture. 

According  to  Mamiya  Rindzo,  the  Sakhalin  Ainos  on  the  shore  obtained  iron 
kettles  and  pans  from  Japan  and  those  from  the  interior  got  theirs  from  Tungus.1 

POTTERY  OF  THE  AINOS 

The  Ainos  of  Yezo  and  the  Kurilians,  according  to  Munro,  were  not  supposed 
to  be  conversant  with  pottery  until  R.  Torii  in  1899  found  that  the  Kurilian 
Ainos  not  only  had  used,  but  recently  had  made  pottery  of  a  coarse  description.2 

Dittmar  found  “small  clay  vessels”  of  most  primitive  workmanship.  “The 
clay  crumbled  under  the  hands,  it  had  evidently  been  badly  (if  at  all)  baked,” 
says  Dittmar.  As  the  pots  were  saturated  with  blubber,  he  thinks  it  possible 

1  R.  Torii,  Htudes  Archiologiques  et  Ethnologiques:  Les  Ainou  des  lies  Kouriles.,  Journal  College  of  Science,  Imperial 
University  of  Tokyo,  1919-1921,  pp.  188-191. 

2  N.  G.  Munro,  Prehistoric  Japan,  Yokohama,  1911,  p.  195. 


Pottery 


73 


that  they  had  been  lamps,  and  not  cooking  pots;  but  this  opinion  may  be  offset 
by  the  shape,  size  and,  especially,  the  depth  of  the  pots  found.1 

Witsen,  based  on  information  received  from  cossacks,  stated  that  the  Kam- 
chadal  used  clay  vessels.2  The  Cossack  Atlassov,3  mentioned  above,  says  in  his 
report  to  the  Government  that  the  Kamchadal  made  pottery  in  his  time.4 

We  see  that  before  our  excavations  there  were  some  indications  as  to  the  former 
pottery-making  of  the  Kamchadal,  but  these  were  somewhat  vague.  Our  diggings 
furnished  more  definite  data  concerning  the  Kamchadal  types  and  methods  of  manu¬ 
facturing  pottery.  We  discovered  two  kinds  of  coarse  clay  vessels — with  handles 
inside  and  with  holes  near  the  upper  rim  of  the  pots — and  a  kind  of  more  elaborate 
ceramics  with  outer  ornamental  designs. 

POTS  OR  PANS  WITH  EARS  INSIDE 

Fragments  of  pottery  with  handles  inside  were  found  by  the  writer  in  many 
diggings  of  the  central  and  southern  parts  of  Kamchatka,  and  he  was  fortunate 
to  discover  one  complete  pot  in  a  pit  on  the  shores  of  the  Nalacheva  Lake  and 
another  on  the  Nalacheva  Cape  (see  Plate  17,  figs.  1,  3).  We  may  say  that 
not  only  the  wheel  was  unknown  to  the  Kamchadal  manufacturer  of  this  rude 
kind  of  pottery,  but  neither  the  coil  method  nor  the  basket  modeling  process  was 
applied  by  him,  though  there  remained  some  impressions  of  basketry  on  the  outer 
side.  It  seems  that  the  vessels  were  worked  out  from  single  blocks  of  clay  and 
beaten  into  shape.  It  is  the  crudest  pottery.  The  dimensions  of  figure  1  have 
been  given  before  (see  p.  48).  The  thickness  is  about  a  third  of  an  inch.  It  is 
difficult  to  say  whether  this  kind  of  pottery  was  especially  burnt  before  being  used 
or  was  baked  by  the  fire  while  cooking.  The  fact  that  these  vessels  remained  intact 
after  having  been  long  buried  under  the  ground  proves  that  they  were  solidly  made 
and  water-tight.  Being  smeared  with  fat  and  blackened  by  smoke,  they  received  a 
coating  against  water,  which  may  be  compared  with  the  glaze  of  higher  types  of 
pottery.  To  make  the  clay  more  resistent  it  was  tempered  with  sand,  gravel  and 
the  hair  of  sables’  tails.5  The  Cossack  Atlassov,  when  presenting  to  the  Government 
the  tribute  of  the  Kamchadal  in  sable-skins,  delivered  many  of  them  without  tails. 
In  apologizing  he  said  that  the  Kamchadal  make  boas  of  sables’  tails  and  used  the 
hair  for  tempering  clay. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  inside  ears  were  intended  for  suspending  the  pot 
over  the  fire,  as  they  afforded  better  protection  to  the  suspending  cord  or  thong 
than  those  outside  the  pan. 

1  Carl  von  Dittmar,  Reisen  und  Aufenthalt  in  Kamchatka  in  den  Jahren  1851-1855,  St.  Petersburg,  Part  i,  p.  213. 

Dittmar  gives  the  following  measurements  of  a  pot:  upper  diameter,  12  cm. ;  lower  diameter,  10  cm.;  maximum  width, 

14  cm.;  depth,  10  cm.  This  vessel,  therefore,  had  an  aperture  smaller  in  diameter  than  the  middle  part,  and  its  bottom  was 
still  smaller  than  the  aperture.  Clay  lamps  are  of  a  quite  different  shape,  as  shown  by  Bogoras,  Nelson  and  other  explorers 
of  the  northern  regions. 

2  Nicolaas  Witsen,  Noord  en  Oost  Tartarye,  Amsterdam,  vols.  i-ii,  2d  ed.,  1705,  p.  673  (1st  ed.,  1692). 

3  S.ee  before  p.  1. 

4  See  G.  Spassky,  Vladimir  Atlassov  the  Conqueror  of  Kamchatka,  Jour.  Imperial  Russian  Geographical  Society,  1858, 
vol.  xxiv,  p.  164  (in  Russian). 

5  Munro  ( Prehistoric  Japan,  p.  196)  supposes  that  grass  was  mixed  by  the  Kurilians  in  their  primitive  pottery,  the 
clay  of  which  became  black,  due  to  the  carbonization  of  the  grass.  R.  Torii  (Les  Ainou  des  lies  Kouriles,  p.  188),  referring  to 
information  received  from  old  Kurilian  people,  says  that  the  ancient  Kurilian  Ainos  tempered  clay  for  pottery  with  sand 
and  minced  grass  called  “nokkanki.” 


74 


Archaeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


We  have  referred  to  Mr.  Torii  who  found  that  the  Kurilian  Ainos  used  this 
kind  of  pottery.  Mr.  Mamiya  Rinzo  displayed  a  clay  pan  with  handles  inside 
from  Yezo.1  Mr.  S.  Suzuki  has  also  shown  a  clay  pan  of  rough  make  with  the 
handles  inside  from  Sakhalin  Island. 

The  question  arises  as  to  where  we  may  look  for  the  place  of  origin  of  this 
kind  of  pottery:  in  Kamchatka  or  Japan.  Pottery  in  general  needs  a  sedentary 
life  for  its  proper  development.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  primitive  pottery 


79 


Fragments  of  ancient  Kurilian  pottery. 

in  question.  It  could  develop  among  the  original  settlers  of  Japan,  the  Ainos,  and 
spread  to  the  north,  to  Sakhalin,  Kurilian  Islands  and  Kamchatka.  The  sedentary 
or  semi-sedentary  fishers  of  Kamchatka  might  have  adopted  it  from  the  Kurilians. 

According  to  Mr.  N.  Tanaka,  “within  the  last  20  years  earthenware  pans  with 
handles  inside  were  in  use  in  Musashi  and  the  island  of  Hachijo.”2 

Illustrations  of  the  following  fragments  of  ancient  Kurilian  pottery  are  taken 
from  R.  Tories  work  ( Les  Ainou  des  lies  Kouriles,  Plate  xxxm).  Figures  75 
and  76  show  fragments  of  Kurilian  pottery  with  inside  ears.  Figure  77  shows  a 

1  The  Japanese  investigator  Mamiya  Rinzo  spent  the  years  1804-1817  in  Sakhalin. 

2  See  Munro,  Prehistoric  Japan,  Yokohama,  1911,  p.  196.  Cited  from  Tokyo  Jinruigaku  (Tokyo  Anthropological 
Magazine),  No.  16,  1887. 


Pottery 


75 


fragment  of  the  lower  part  and  the  flat  bottom  of  a  clay  vessel.  Figure  78  repre¬ 
sents  a  fragment  of  a  clay  vessel  with  a  drilled  hole  for  tying  it  by  a  cord  to  the  hole 
of  another  broken  piece  of  the  vessel.  In  figure  79,  Torii  gives  an  outline  of  a  clay 
pan  with  two  ears  inside.  It  is  not  clear  whether  there  was  a  third  ear,  like  that 
in  the  Kamchadal  clay  pots. 

Figure  80  shows  a  fragment  of  ancient  Aino  pottery  with  an  ear  inside,  found, 
according  to  Torii,  in  Sapporo  on  Yezo.  It  is  shown  one-third  natural  size.  Fig¬ 
ure  81  represents  a  clay  vessel  of  ancient  pottery  with  ears  inside  found  in  Esashi, 
Yezo;  two-ninths  natural  size.  This  drawing  is  taken  from  an  article  by  the  late 
Professor  S.  Tsuboi  in  the  Bulletin  of  the  Tokyo  Anthropological  Society  (vol. 
iv,  No.  37,  March  1889,  p.  227).  This  vessel  has  only  two  inside  ears.  A  rough 
sketch  of  a  Sakhalin  clay  pot  with  ears  inside  is  shown  by  Mr.  Suzuki  in  his  work, 
Karafuto  Nikki.1  Like  figure  81  this  vessel  also  has  only  two  ears. 


According  to  Torii  ( Les  Ainou  des  lies  Kouriles,  p.  279)  fragments  of  pottery 
with  ears  inside  the  pots  were  found  also  in  Japan,  i.  e.,  on  the  Nippon  Island. 
Thus  we  see  that  the  manufacture  of  this  kind  of  primitive  pottery  was  not  limited 
to  the  Kurilian  Islands  and  Sakhalin  only.  It  spread  all  over  Japan — over  locali¬ 
ties  formerly  inhabited  by  Ainos.  But  from  nowhere,  except  in  Kamchatka,  were 
clay  vessels  with  three  inside  handles  reported. 

Figure  82  shows  a  sketch  of  an  iron  pan  from  Sakhalin  with  ears  inside  the 
vessel.  The  illustration  was  published  by  Torii  ( Les  Ainou  des  lies  Kouriles,  p. 
195).  Figure  83  shows  a  drawing  of  an  iron  pot  with  loops  on  the  inside  surface. 
It  is  from  a  photograph  of  a  piece  in  the  Museum  of  the  Imperial  University  in 
Tokyo,  kindly  forwarded  to  me  by  Professor  Akira  Matsumura.  The  cord  is 
covered  with  birch  bark  in  order  to  protect  it  from  the  heat  of  the  boiling  pot. 
It  must  be  noted  that  the  iron  pots  (figs.  82-83)  have  only  two  inside  ears  like  the 

1  Suzuki  traveled  in  Karafuto  (Sakhalin)  Island  in  1853.  See  Karafuto  Nikki,  Shigehisa  [Suzuki,  With  Notes  and 
Addenda  by  Takeshiro  Matsuura,  2  vols.,  Tokyo,  1860. 


76 


Archeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


Aino  clay  pots  referred  to  above.1  Such  iron  pots,  says  Munro,  have  been  found 
in  the  pits  of  Hokkaido  (Yezo)  with  wares  of  wood  and  implements  of  stone.2 
The  Yezo  Ainos,  he  says  in  another  place,  have  long  been  accustomed  to  use  iron 
pots  from  Japan  or  Siberia,  some  of  which  had  handles  inside,  and  it  is  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  the  clay  pan  with  handles  inside  was  copied  from  the  useful  iron 
model.  I  wish  to  add  to  this  statement  that  nowhere  in  Siberia  have  I  seen  iron 
pots  with  handles  inside,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  such  iron  pots  were  made  in 
Japan  and  copied  from  the  more  primitive  model,  the  clay  pot,  and  not  the  reverse.3 

Plate  17,  figure  2,  shows  the  upper  part  of  a  clay  pot,  the  three  fragments 
of  which  I  cemented  together  and  which  had  no  handles.  The  height  of  the  pot 
and  the  shape  of  the  bottom,  whether  flat  or  conical,  are  unknown.  As  this  pot 
has  no  handles  or  holes  for  suspension,  one  may  suppose  that  the  bottom  was  flat, 
intended  to  rest  amid  the  burning  logs  and  in  the  ashes  of  the  primitive  hearth, 
which  was  the  ground  and  sometimes  had  an  enclosure  of  stones  to  confine  the  fire. 
This  pot  looks  somewhat  smoother  than  the  pans  with  handles  inside  and  its  rim 
is  decorated  with  four  parallel  lines.  It  was  probably  deeper  than  the  shallow 
pans,  but  it  was  made  of  the  same  coarse  clay  and  not  subjected  to  a  special  burn¬ 
ing.  The  decorative  lines  were  made  when  the  clay  was  still  wet,  by  a  bone  instru¬ 
ment  like  that  shown  on  Plate  16,  figure  10.  Fragments  of  upper  parts  of  clay 
pots  with  decorative  parallel  lines  are  shown  on  Plate  18,  figure  2. 

A  DIFFERENT  KIND  OF  POTTERY  TO  THE  NORTH  OF  KAMCHATKA 

Fragments  of  a  different  kind  of  clay  pots  were  found  by  the  author  in  the 
excavations  of  northern  Kamchatka.  Plate  19,  figure  1,  shows  pottery  frag¬ 
ments  of  the  Kulki  site  and  figure  2  of  the  Kavran  site.  The  majority  of  these 
fragments  seems  to  be  from  small  vessels,  the  clay  to  be  burnt,  and  the  pots  more 
decorated  than  those  of  southern  Kamchatka.  In  some  cases  impressions  of 
baskets  or  ropes  may  be  seen,  but  most  of  the  decorations,  consisting  of  dots,  fines, 
zigzags  and  other  figures,  were  made  by  the  hand  by  means  of  bone  or  wooden 
implements.  Holes  were  found  in  many  of  the  pottery  fragments.  The  holes 
were  made  differently  for  particular  purposes;  those  near  the  upper  rim  were 
made  by  an  awl,  when  the  clay  was  still  wet,  and  intended  to  serve  as  loops 
for  cords  or  thongs  for  suspension  over  the  hearth.  Other  holes  were  made  by  a 
drill  in  order  to  mend  broken  pieces  by  tying  them  with  sinew  threads  and  smearing 
over  the  broken  fines  with  clay.  On  Plate  19,  figure  1,  are  shown  both  kinds  of 
holes  on  two  fragments.  Going  farther  to  the  north  we  may  point  to  a  restored 
clay  pot,  from  fragments  found  by  the  writer  while  digging  an  old  Koryak  site. 
The  mouth  of  the  pot  had  a  diameter  of  about  27  cm.,  its  height  must  have  been 
approximately  27  cm.,  and  the  walls  were  4  to  8  mm.  thick.  All  potsherds  found 
in  the  Koryak4  territory  are  quite  thin,  so  that  their  manufacture  had  little  in 

1  It  must  be  noted  that  the  iron  pot  in  figure  82  has,  besides  inside  loops,  three  feet  evidently  for  putting  the  vessel 
on  a  table  or  bottom  for  eating. 

2  Cited  from  Professor  Tsuboi,  Tokyo  Anthropological  Magazine,  No.  16,  June  1887. 

3  The  Siberian  iron  and  copper  pots  and  kettles,  manufactured  chiefly  in  European  Russia,  have  handles  outside 
the  vessels  or  on  their  upper  rims. 

4  See  the  author’s  work,  The  Koryak,  p.  640,  fig.  165. 


Pottery 


77 


common  with  that  of  the  thick  and  clumsy  clay  lamps  and  unbaked  quadrangular 
kettles  of  the  modern  Chukchee  and  Asiatic  Eskimo.  The  potsherds  found  in 
the  Koryak  excavations  were  black  from  soot  and  fat,  and  were  evidently  well 
baked,  as  they  remained  strong  and  hard,  although  they  had  been  lying  in  the  wet 
soil.  All  these  potsherds  were  made  of  coarse  clay  containing  fine  gravel  and  pieces 
of  quartz.  The  Koryak  pot  referred  to  above  was  molded  by  hand,  and  all  over 
the  outside  are  the  impressions  of  closely  woven,  twined  basketry.  Evidently  this 
impression  was  made  by  taking  a  piece  of  twined  fabric  in  one  hand  and  pressing  it 
against  the  moist  pot,  the  twined  woof  being  placed  so  that  the  lines  ran  at  right 
angles  to  the  rim.  The  pot  had  a  conical  bottom  and  it  is  possible  that  it  was, 
intended  to  be  supported  by  stones  or  to  rest  in  a  cavity  of  the  hearth.1 

Proceeding  farther  to  the  north  we  find  among  the  Chukchee  and  the  Asiatic 
Eskimo  a  pottery  somewhat  like  that  of  the  Alaskan  Eskimo.  Their  elongated 
rectangular  form  is  adapted  to  the  shape  of  the  lamp  over  which  it  is  hung  in 
cooking.  It  may  be  that  this  form  of  pottery  came  to  Alaska  from  Asia.  Some 
clay  kettles  of  the  same  shape  from  St.  Lawrence  Island  are  among  the  collections 
of  the  U.  S.  National  Museum  of  Washington. 

1  We  have  seen  before  (p.  30)  that  neolithic  sites  in  the  Baikal  Region  yielded  clay  pots  with  a  conical  bottom  which 
were  supported  on  the  hearth  by  stones.  Professor  Petri  contends  that  pottery  with  flat  bottoms  appeared  chiefly  in  the 
iron  age.  The  pot  with  a  conical  bottom  found  by  the  author  in  a  site  of  the  Koryak  territory  may  support  Petri’s  sup¬ 
position.  On  the  other  hand  a  fragment  of  a  clay  pot  with  a  flat  bottom  from  a  neolithic  site  of  the  Ainos  is  shown  in  figure 

77. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Agapitoff,  N.  N.  Archaeological  Investigations  in  the  Province  Irkutsk.  (Proceedings  of  the  V  Archaeological  Congress 
in  Tiflis,  1881.  In  Russian.) 

■ - .  Remains  of  the  Stone  Age  in  the  Valleys  of  Kuda  and  Unga  Rivers.  (Bull.  East  Siberian  Division  of  the  Russian 

Geographical  Society,  1881,  Vol.  XII,  Nos.  4-5.  In  Russian.) 

Anderson,  J.  G.  An  Early  Chinese  Culture.  (Bull,  of  the  Geolog.  Survey  of  China,  No.  5,  1923.) 

- .  Stone  Implements  of  Neolithic  Type  in  China.  (Chinese  Medical  Journal,  Anatomical  Supplement,  July  1920.) 

- .  The  Cave  Deposits  at  Sha-Kuo-Tun  in  Fengtien  Palaeontologia  Sinica  (Geolog.  Survey  of  China,  Series  D,  Vol.  1, 

No.  1,  1923.) 

Andrews,  Roy  Chapman.  On  the  Trail  of  Ancient  Man.  A  Narrative  of  the  Field  Work  of  the  Central  Asiatic  Expedition 
of  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History  in  cooperation  with  "Asia  Magazine.”  (New  York  and  London, 
1926.) 

Auerbakh,  N.  K.  See  Sosnovsky  and  Auerbakh. 

Barthold,  W.  W.  Die  geographische  und  historische  Erforschung  des  Orients  mit  besonderer  Beriicksichtigung  der 
Russischen  Arbeiten.  (Leipzig,  1913.  German  translation  from  Russian.) 

Bate,  Baron  de.  Rapport  sur  les  decouvertes  faites  par  M.  Savenkov  dans  la  Siberie  Orientale.  (Lecture  faite  &  l’Acade- 
mie  des  Sciences,  Paris,  1894.) 

Berg,  L.  S.  Discovery  of  Kamchatka  and  the  Kamchatka  Expeditions  of  Bering.  (Leningrad  and  Moscow,  1924.  In 
Russian.) 

- .  Information  on  the  Bering  Strait  and  its  Shores  before  Bering  and  Cook.  (Petrograd,  1920.  In  Russian.) 

Bergman,  Sten.  Vulkane,  Baren  und  Nomaden.  Reisen  und  Ergebnisse  im  wilden  Kamtschatka.  (Stuttgart,  1926.) 

Billings,  Joseph.  Voyage.  (London,  1802,  edited  by  Martin  Sauer.) 

Bishop,  Carl  Whiting.  The  Historical  Geography  of  early  Japan.  (From  the  Smithsonian  Report  for  1925,  Washington, 
1926.) 

Black,  D.  Tertiary  Man  in  Asia.  (Science,  Dec.  17,  1926.) 

Boas,  Franz.  Ethnological  Problems  in  Canada.  (Journal  Royal  Anthropological  Institute,  London!  1910,  Vol.  XL). 

- .  History  of  the  American  Race.  (Annals,  New  York  Academy  of  Sciences,  Vol.  21,  1912,  New  York.) 

Bogdanovitsch,  Karl.  Geologische  Skizze  von  Kamtschatka.  (Petermann  Mitteilungen,  Band  50,  1904,  pages  66, 
198,  217.) 

Bogoras,  Waldemar.  Folklore  of  Northeastern  Asia.  (American  Anthropologist,  n.s.,  Vol.  IV,  No.  2,  1902.) 

- .  The  Chukchee.  (Memoir  of  the  Jesup  North  Pacific  Expedition,  Vol.  VII.) 

- .  Chukchee  Language.  (Handbook  of  American  Indian  Languages,  Bull.  4,  Part  2,  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology, 

edited  by  Prof.  Franz  Boas.) 

Boule,  Marcellin.  Fossil  Men.  Elements  of  Human  Palaeontology.  (Translated  from  the  French,  London,  1923.) 

Bowers,  St.  Fish-hooks  from  Southern  California.  (Science,  Cambridge,  Massachusetts,  1883.) 

Burney,  J.  A.  Chronological  History  of  the  Discoveries  in  the  Pacific  Ocean.  (London,  1803.) 

- .  Memoir  on  the  Geography  of  the  Northeastern  Part  of  Asia.  (London,  1818.) 

- .  Chronological  History  of  the  Northeastern  Voyages  of  Discovery  and  of  the  Early  Navigation  of  the  Russians. 

(London,  1819.) 

Buxton,  L.  H.  Dudley.  The  Peoples  of  Asia.  (New  York,  1925.) 

Chardin,  Teilhard  de,  and  F.  Licent.  On  the  Discovery  of  a  Paleolithic  Industry  in  Northern  China.  (Bull.  Geological 
Survey  of  China,  Vol.  3,  No.  1,  1924.) 

- .  On  the  Geology  of  the  Northern,  Western  and  Southern  Borders  of  the  Ordos,  China.  (Bull.  Geol.  Survey  of 

China,  Vol.  3,  No.  1,  1924.) 

- .  Note  sur  deux  instruments  neolithique  de  Chine.  (Anthropologie,  Vol.  XXXV,  Nos.  1-2,  1925,  pages  63-74.) 

Chamberlain,  Basil  Hall.  Things  Japanese.  (Fifth  Edition,  London,  1905.) 

Chekanovsky,  A.  A  Brief  Account  on  the  Results  of  the  Investigations  during  the  Summer  1871.  (Bull.  Siberian  Div. 
Russian  Geograph.  Society.  Irkutsk,  Vol.  I,  No.  5,  pages  37-38.  In  Russian.) 

Chersky,  I.  D.  A  Few  Words  on  the  Excavated  Artifacts  of  the  Stone  Age  near  Irkutsk.  (Bull.  Siberian  Division  Imp. 
Russ.  Geograph.  Society,  Vol.  II,  No.  3,  pages  167-172.  In  Russian.) 

Cook,  J.  Voyage  to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  (London,  1784.) 

Coxe,  William.  Account  of  Russian  Discoveries  between  Asia  and  America.  (London,  1787.) 

Czaplicka,  M.  A.  Aboriginal  Siberia.  A  Study  in  Social  Anthropology.  (Oxford  University  Press,  1914.) 

Dall,  W.  H.  Notes  on  the  Pre-Historic  Remains  in  the  Aleutian  Islands.  (Proceedings,  California  Academy  of  Sciences, 
Nov.  4,  1872.) 

- .  On  Further  Examinations  of  the  Amaknakh  Cave,  Captain’s  Bay,  Unalaska.  (Proceedings,  California  Academy 

of  Sciences,  Nov.  17,  1873.) 

- .  On  the  Succession  in  the  Shell-Heaps  of  the  Aleutian  Islands.  (Contributions  to  North  American  Ethnology, 

Vol.  I,  Washington,  1877,  pages  41-91.) 

- .  On  the  Remains  of  Later  Prehistoric  Man  obtained  from  Caves  in  the  Catherina  Archipelago,  Alaska  Territory, 

and  especially  from  the  caves  of  the  Aleutian  Islands.  (Smithsonian  Contributions  to  Knowledge,  Washington, 
1878.) 

Deniker,  J.  The  Races  of  Man.  London  (1900.) 

Derbhavin,  A.  N.  The  Fall  Voyage  to  the  Kuril  Lake.  (Chapter  XII  of  Part  I  of  Prof.  P.  J.  Schmidt’s  Volume  on  the 
Zoological  Investigations  of  the  Zoological  Division  of  the  Riaboushinsky’s  Kamchatka  Expedition.  See 
Schmidt,  P.  J.  In  Russian.) 

Dittmar,  Carl  von.  Travels  and  Sojourn  in  Kamchatka  in  the  Years  1851-1855.  (Part  I,  in  Russian,  translated  from 
the  German  original,  St.  Petersburg,  1901.) 


79 


80 


Archaeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


Dittmar,  Carl  von.  Reisen  und  Aufenthalt  in  Kamtschatka  in  den  Jahren  1851-1855.  (St.  Petersburg,  1890,  Part  1.) 

Erman,  G.  A.  Reise  um  die  Erde  durch  Nord-Asian  und  die  beiden  Oceane  in  den  Jahren  1828-1830.  (Berlin,  1838.) 

Florinsky,  W.  The  Archaeological  Museum  of  the  University  in  Tomsk.  (Tomsk,  1888.  In  Russian.) 

Gapanovich,  J.  J.  The  Native  Population  of  Kamchatka.  (North  Asia,  Journal  of  Social  Science,  Moscow,  1925,  No.  5, 
pages  40-52.  In  Russian.) 

Golder,  F.  A.  Russian  Expansion  on  the  Pacific,  1641-1850.  An  Account  of  the  Earliest  and  Later  Expeditions  made  by 
the  Russians  along  the  Pacific  Coast  of  Asia  and  North  America,  including  some  related  Expeditions  to  the 
Arctic  Regions.  (Cleveland,  1914.) 

Gower,  Charlotte  D.  The  Northern  and  Southern  Affiliations  of  Antillean  Culture.  (Memoirs  American  Anthropological 
Association,  No.  35,  1927,  p.  26.) 

Guerye,  Vladimir.  On  the  Relations  of  Leibnitz  to  Peter  the  Great,  according  to  the  unpublished  records  of  Leibnitz  in 
the  library  at  Hannover.  (Separate  of  Journal  Department  of  Education,  St.  Petersburg,  1871.  In  Russian.) 

- .  Collection  of  Letters  and  Notes  of  Leibnitz  concerning  Russia  and  Peter  the  Great.  (St.  Petersburg,  1873.  Pub¬ 
lished  by  the  Imperial  Russian  Academy  of  Sciences.  In  Russian.) 

Heye,  G.  G.  Certain  Artifacts  from  San  Miguel  Island,  California.  (Indian  Notes  and  Monographs,  Museum  of  the 
American  Indian,  Vol.  7,  No.  4,  New  York,  1921.)  ( 

Hitchcock,  Romyn.  The  Ainos  of  Yezo.  (Report  U.  S.  National  Museum  for  1890.  Washington,  1892.) 

- .  The  Ancient  Pit-Dwellers  of  Yezo.  (Report  U.  S.  National  Museum  for  1890,  Washington,  1892.) 

Inostrantzev,  A.  A.  Prehistoric  Man  of  the  Stone  Age  on  the  Shore  of  the  Ladoga  Sea.  (Petrograd,  1882.  In  Russian.) 

Jochelson,  Waldemar.  The  Koryak.  (Jesup  North  Pacific  Expedition,  Vol.  VI,  1905-1908.) 

- .  Die  Riaboushinsky  Expedition  nach  Kamtschatka.  (Globus,  No.  14,  1908,  pages  224-225.) 

- .  The  Riaboushinsky  Expedition  under  the  Auspices  of  the  Imperial  Russian  Geographical  Society  to  the  Aleutian 

Islands  and  Kamchatka.  (Proceedings,  18  International  Congress  of  Americanists,  London,  1912,  pages  334- 
345.) 

- .  Letters  of  the  Leader  of  the  Ethnological  Division  of  the  Kamchatka  Expedition  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Imperial 

Russian  Geographical  Society.  (Bull.  Imp.  Russ.  Geogr.  Society,  Vol.  XLV,  Part  IX,  1909,  and  Vol.  XL VII, 
Part  I-V,  1911.  In  Russian.) 

- .  Archaeological  Investigations  in  the  Aleutian  Islands.  (Carnegie  Institution  of  Washington  Pub.  No.  367,  1925.) 

- .  Ethnological  Problems  of  Bering  Sea.  (Natural  History,  Journal  American  Museum,  Jan.-Feb.  1926,  Vol.  XXVI, 

No.  I,  pages  90-95.) 

- .  Past  and  Present  Subterranean  Dwellings  of  the  Tribes  of  North-Eastern  Asia  and  North-Western  America. 

(Int.  Qongr.  Americ.  Quebec,  1906.) 

Jochelson-Brodsky,  Frau  Dina.  Zur  Topographie  des  weiblichen  Korpers  nordostsibirischen  Volker.  (Inaugural-Dis¬ 
sertation  zur  Erlangung  der  Doktorwiirde  der  Hohen  medizinischen  Fakultat  der  Universitat  Zurich.  Aus  dem 
Anthropologischen  Institut  der  Universitat  Zurich  (Direktor:  Professor  Dr.  R.  Martin),  1906.  Reprinted  in 
“Archiv  fur  Anthropologie,”  Braunschweig,  1906.) 

- .  Contribution  to  the  Anthropology  of  the  Women  of  the  North-Eastern  Siberian  Tribes.  (Russian  Anthropological 

Journal,  Moscow,  1907.  In  Russian.) 

Kastchenko,  N.  F.  Remnants  of  a  Mammoth  found  near  Tomsk.  (Bull.  Russian  Academy  of  Sciences,  1896,  Vol.  V, 
No.  1,  p.  31.  In  Russian). 

- .  The  Skeleton  of  a  Mammoth  with  Traces  of  being  used  as  Food  of  Some  Parts  of  its  Body  by  Contemporaneous 

Man.  (Memoirs  of  the  Russian  Academy  of  Sciences,  Series  VIII,  Vol.  XI,  No.  7,  1901.  In  Russian.) 

- .  Ein  von  Menschen  verrehrtes  Mammoth.  (Correspondenz-Blatt  der  Deutschen  Gesellschaft  fur  Anthropologie, 

Ethnologie  und  Urgeschichte,  1896,  p.  45.) 

Khoroshikh,  P.  P.  Investigations  of  the  Stone  and  Iron  Ages  of  the  Irkutsk  Country  (the  Olkhon  Island).  (Bull.  Biologic- 
Geographical  Institute,  University  Irkutsk,  1924,  Vol.  I,  Part  1.  In  Russian.  Accompanied  by  an  Index  of 
the  literature  on  the  Archaeology  of  the  Irkutsk  Country.) 

Klementz,  D.  A.  The  Antiquities  of  the  Minusinsk  Museum.  (Tomsk,  1886.  In  Russian.) 

Komarov,  W.  L.  Travels  in  Kamchatka  in  1908-1909.  (Kamchatka  Expedition  of  F.  P.  Riaboushinsky  fitted  out  by  the 
Imp.  Russian  Geographical  Society,  Botanical  Division,  Vol.  I,  Moscow,  1912.  In  Russian.) 

Kozmin,  N.  M.  Remains  of  the  Stone  Age  in  the  Valley  of  the  Small  Patom  River.  (Bull.  East.  Siberian  Division,  Russ. 
Geograph.  Society,  Vol.  XXIX,  Part  1.  In  Russian.) 

Krasheninnikoef,  S.  P.  Description  of  the  Country  of  Kamchatka.  (St.  Petersburg,  3  edition,  1818,  two  vols.  In 
Russian.) 

Krause,  Aurel.  Die  Tlinkit  Indianer,  Ergebnisse  einer  Reise  nach  der  Nordwestkilste  von  Amerika  und  der  Beringstrasse. 
(Jena,  1885.) 

Kusnetzov,  A.  Archaeological  Investigations  in  the  Southeastern  part  of  Transbaikalia.  (Bull.  East-Siberian  Division. 
Russian  Geographical  Society,  Vol.  XXIV,  No.  2.  In  Russian.) 

Laufer,  Berthold.  Jade.  A  Study  in  Chinese  Archaeology  and  Religion.  Chicago.  (1912  Field  Museum  of  Natural 
History  Publication  154,  Anthropological  Series,  Vol.  X.) 

Lesseps,  M.  de.  Travels  in  Kamchatka.  (English  translation  from  French,  London,  1791.) 

Licent,  F.  See  Chardin,  Teilhard  de. 

- .  Dix  Annees  (1914-1923)  dans  le  Bassin  du  Fleuve  Janne  et  autres  Tributaires  du  Golf  du  Peitchenly.  (3  Vols., 

text;  I  Vol.  tables;  atlas  of  154  sheets.  Published  by  La  Librairie  Francaise,  Tientsin,  1924.) 

Linkov,  A.  Archaeological  Excursions.  Village  Ust-Balei,  River  Kitoi  and  Villages  Krishanovstchina  and  Stchukina. 
(Siberian  Archives,  1911,  No.  1,  pages  13-19.  In  Russian.) 

Luschan,  Felix  von.  Eisentechnik  in  Afrika.  (Zeitschrift  fur  Ethnologie,  Band  41,  Berlin,  1909.) 

- .  Volker,  Rassen,  Sprachen.  (Berlin,  1922.) 

MacCurdy,  George  Grant.  Human  Origins.  (New  York  and  London,  1924,  Vols.  I— II.) 

- .  The  Field  of  Paleolithic  Art.  (American  Anthropologist,  Vol.  26,  No.  1,  Jan.-Mar.,  1924,  p.  41.) 

- .  Certain  Specimens  from  the  Riviere  Collection.  (American  Anthropologist,  n.  s.  Vol.  25,  No.  1,  1923,  p.  81.) 

Margaritoff,  V.  Kitchen  Refuse  found  on  the  Shore  of  the  Amur  Bay.  (Publ.  Society  Study  of  the  Amur  Country, 
Vladivostok,  1889.  In  Russian.) 

Matsumura,  Akira.  On  the  Cephalic  Index  and  Stature  of  the  Japanese  and  their  Local  Difference.  A  Contribution  to 
the  Physical  Anthropology  of  Japan.  (Anthropological  Institute,  Tokyo,  Imperial  University,  Journal  Faculty 
of  Science,  Section  V :  Anthropology,  Vol.  1,  Part  1,  Tokyo,  1925,  pages  312,  Plates  I-X,  Tables  I-L.) 


Bibliography 


81 


Merhart,  G.  von.  The  Results  of  Archaeological  Investigations  in  the  Yenisei  Country.  (Bull.  Krasnoyarsk  Division 
Russian  Geographical  Society.  Krasnoyarsk,  1922,  Vol.  Ill,  Part  1,  pages  32-34.  In  Russian). 

- .  The  Palaeolithic  Period  in  Siberia,  Contribution  to  the  Prehistory  of  the  Yenisei  Region.  (American  Anthropolo¬ 
gist,  Vol.  25,  1923,  pages  21-55.) 

Miller,  G.  F.  Sammlung  Russischer  Geschichte.  (St.  Petersburg,  1732-1764,  9  Volumes.) 

Munro,  N.  G.  Prehistoric  Jaipan.  Yokohama,  1911. 

Nelson,  N.  C.  Notes  on  the  Archaeology  of  the  Gobi.  (American  Anthropologist,  Jan.-Mar.  1926,  pages  305-308.) 

- .  Archaeological  Research  in  Asia.  (Natural  History,  Journal  Amer.  Museum  of  Natural  History  May-June 

1925,  p.  314.) 

- .  The  Dune-Dwellers  of  the  Gobi.  (Natural  History,  May-June  1921,  p.  241.) 

- .  Prehistoric  Man  of  Central  China.  (Natural  History,  Journal  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  Vol.  XXVI, 

pages  570-579,  No.  6,  Nov.-Dee.  1926.) 

Novitzky,  W.  M.  The  Dune-Sites  in  the  Delta  of  the  Ob  River.  (Memoirs  Society  of  Natural  History  Kasan  Univer¬ 
sity,  Vol.  XLIX,  Part  1.  In  Russian.) 

Obrutschev,  W.  A.  Geologie  von  Sibirien.  (Berlin,  1926.) 

Ovchinnikoff,  M.  P.  The  Diary  of  N.  J.  Vitkovsky  written  while  traveling  on  the  Angara.  (Siberian  Archives,  No.  10, 
Irkutsk,  1912.  In  Russian.) 

- .  Materials  for  the  Study  of  ancient  Remains  in  the  Environs  of  Irkutsk.  (Bull.  East-Siberian  Division  Russian 

Geographical  Society,  1904,  Vol.  XXXV,  No.  3,  pages  62-76.  In  Russian.) 

Patkanoff,  S.  K.  On  the  Increase  of  the  non-Russian  Population  in  Siberia.  (Published  by  Imp.  Russian  Academy  of 
Sciences,  St.  Petersburg,  1911.  In  Russian.) 

Pbredolsky,  V.  V.  On  the  River  Yenisei  and  its  Tributaries.  (Bull.  Russian  Geographical  Society.  St.  Petersburg,  Vol. 
XXXII,  Part  III,  pages  210-224.  In  Russian.) 

Petri,  B.  E.  Archaeology.  (A  guide-book  for  the  Museum  of  Anthropology  and  Ethnography  of  the  Russian  Academy  of 
Sciences,  Petrograd,  1916.  In  Russian.) 

- .  Deuxieme  Voyage  en  Cisbaikalie,  an  cours  de  l’6t6  1913.  (Bull,  public  par  le  Comit6  Russe  de  l’Association  Inter¬ 
nationale  pour  1’exploration  historique  arch6o!ogique,  linguistique  et  ethnographique  de  l’Asie  Central  et  de 
l’Extreme  Orient.  Petrograd,  1914,  S6rie  II,  No.  3,  pages  89-103.) 

- .  Neolithic  Finds  on  the  Baikal.  A  preliminary  Report  on  the  Excavations  of  the  Neolithic  Station  Ulan-Khad. 

(Memoir  Museum  for  Anthropology  and  Ethnography  of  Russian  Academy  of  Sciences,  1916,  Vol.  3.  In 
Russian.) 

- .  Report  on  a  Voyage  to  the  Baikal  Lake  in  the  Summer  of  1916.  (Report  of  the  Russian  Academy  of  Sciences 

1916.  In  Russian.) 

- .  The  Siberian  Palseolith.  (Irkutsk,  1923.  In  Russian.) 

- .  The  First  Traces  of  the  Prehistoric  Man  in  Siberia.  (Chita,  1922.  Ip  Russian.) 

- .  The  Siberian  Neolith.  (Irkutsk,  1926.  In  Russian.) 

- .  The  Prehistorical  Iron  Smiths  of  the  Baikal  Region.  (Chita  1923.  In  Russian.) 

- .  The  Neolithic  Colony  in  the  Pestchana  Bay  on  the  Baikal.  (University  Volume  of  the  Investigations  of  the  Pro¬ 
fessors  and  Lecturers  at  the  State’s  University  in  Irkutsk,  1921,  Part  2,  pp.  56-65.  In  Russian.) 

- .  Antiquities  of  the  Kosogol  Lake,  Mongolia.  (Irkutsk  1926.  In  Russian.) 

- .  The  Far  Past  of  the  Buryat  Country.  (Irkutsk  1922.  In  Russian.) 

Poliakoff,  J.  S.  An  Account  on  the  voyage  to  the  Eastern  Sayan  Mountains.  (Report  Siberian  Division,  Russian  Geo¬ 
graphical  Society  for  1868.  In  Russian.) 

Popov,  N.  Remains  of  the  prehistoric  Man  near  the  village  Badai.  (Irkutsk,  1925.  In  Russian.) 

Pumpelly,  Raphael.  Explorations  in  Turkestan.  Prehistoric  Civilization  of  Anau.  (Carnegie  Institution  of  Washington, 
Pub.  No.  73,  Vols.  I-II,  1908.) 

- .  My  Reminiscences.  (Vols.  I-II,  New  York,  1918.) 

Puxov,  Dr.  Medico-Statistical  Survey  of  the  Population  in  Kamchatka.  (See  Shirokogoroff,  The  Northern  Tungua 
Migrations  in  the  Far  East,  p.  174.) 

Radloff,  W.  W.  The  Siberian  Antiquities.  Materials  for  the  Archaeology  of  Russia.  (Publication  Archaeological  Com¬ 
mission,  1888.  In  Russian.) 

- .  Aus  Sibirien.  (Leipzig,  1884,  2d  Edition,  Vols.  I-II.) 

Rostovtzeff,  M.  Iranians  and  Greeks  in  South  Russia.  (Oxford,  1922.) 

Roth,  W.  E.  An  Introductory  Study  of  the  Arts,  Craft  and  Customs  of  the  Guiana  Indians.  (Annual  Report  of  the 
Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  1924,  p.  73.) 

Rudenko,  S.  J.  A  Scientific  Trip  to  the  Kirghiz  Country  in  the  Summer  of  1921.  (Geographical  Messenger,  1922,  Vol. 
I,  Part  I,  p.  21.  In  Russian.) 

Savenkov,  J.  T.  To  the  Reconnaissance  Materials  on  the  Archaeology  of  the  Middle  Course  of  the  Yenisei.  (Bull.  East- 
Siberian  Division  Russian  Geographical  Society,  Vol.  XVII,  Nos.  3-4,  pages  30-33.  In  Russian.) 

- .  On  the  Paleolithic  Epoch  in  the  Environs  of  Krasnoyarsk.  (Supplement,  Protocol  Society  of  Medical  Men  of 

the  Yeniseisk  Province  of  1892.  In  Russian.) 

- .  On  the  Vestiges  Left  on  the  Yenisei  by  Man,  Contemporary  with  the  Mammoth.  (Report,  General  Meeting 

Society  of  Naturalists  at  the  University  of  Warsaw.  Year  VII,  p.  7,  1896.  In  Russian.) 

- .  The  Stone  Age  in  the  Country  of  Minusinsk,  (Moscow,  1897.  In  Russian.) 

- .  Sur  les  Restes  de  l’epoque  paleolithique  dans  les  environs  de  Krasnoiarsk  Gouv.  de  Yenisseisk,  Sib6rie.  (Con- 

gres  International  d’archeologie  prGiistorique  et  d’anthropologie,  11-eme  session  a  Moscow,  1892.) 

Schmidt,  P.  J.  Investigations  of  the  Zoological  Division  of  the  Kamchatka  Expedition  of  F.  P.  Riaboushinsky  in  Kam¬ 
chatka  in  1908-1909.  (Part  1,  Moscow,  1916.  In  Russian.) 

Sheldon,  William.  Brief  Account  of  the  Caribs  who  inhabited  the  Antilles.  (Transactions,  American  Antiquarian 
Society,  I,  1820,  pages  365-433.) 

Shirokogoroff,  S.  M.  Northern  Tungus  Migrations  in  the  Far  East.  (Journal,  North-China  Branch  Royal  Asiatic 
Society,  Vol.  LVII,  1926,  pages  123-183.) 

- .  Reviews  of  Recent  Books.  (Journal,  North-China  Branch  Royal  Asiatic  Society,  Vol.  LVII,  1926,  pages  213-224.) 

Slovtzoff,  I.  G.  Finds  of  the  Stone  Age  near  the  City  of  Tyumen.  (Memoirs  West-Siberian  Division,  Russian  Geograph¬ 
ical  Society,  Vol.  VII,  Part  1,  pages  1-59.  In  Russian.) 

Slovtzoff,  P.  Historical  Survey  of  Siberia.  (St.  Petersburg,  1886.  In  Russian.) 


82 


Archeological  Investigations  in  Kamchatka 


Slovtzoff,  P.  On  the  remarkable  Transbaikalian  Relics.  (The  Siberian  Messenger,  1821.  In  Russian.) 

Sosnovsky,  G.  P.  To  the  Archaeology  of  the  Angara  Country.  (The  Siberian  Old  Living  Times,  Part  I,  1923,  pages  154- 
178.  In  Russian.) 

- .  Remains  of  the  Prehistoric  Past  by  the  Village  Rasputina  on  the  Angara  River.  (Irkutsk,  1924,  Publication, 

Irkutsk  Scientific  Museum.  In  Russian.) 

- .  New  Discovered  Sites  of  the  Palaeolothic  Period  in  the  Environs  of  Krasnoyarsk.  (Separate  of  Memoirs  of  Scien¬ 
tific  Museum  of  Irkutsk,  1924.  In  Russian.) 

- ,  and  N.  K.  Auebbakh.  Remains  of  the  Oldest  Culture  of  Man  in  Siberia.  (The  Life  of  Siberia,  Nos.  5-6,  1925, 

pages  119-223.  In  Russian.) 

Spassky,  G.  Vladimir  Atlasoff,  the  Conqueror  of  Kamchatka.  (Journal,  Imperial  Russian  Geographical  Society,  1858, 
Vol.  XXIV.  In  Russian.) 

Stelleb,  G.  W.  Beschreibung  von  dem  Lande  Kamchatka.  (Frankfurt  und  Leipzig,  1774.) 

Steensby,  H.  P.  An  Anthropogeographical  Study  of  the  Origin  of  the  Eskimo  Culture.  (Kobenhavn,  1916.) 

Stefansson,  Vii.hjAmub.  My  Life  with  the  Eskimo.  (New  York,  1913.) 

Stebnbebg,  L.  J.  The  Gilyak.  (Ethnographical  Survey,  Moscow,  1905.  In  Russian.) 

Sukachev,  V.  N.  The  Turfs  on  the  Kara-Tundra.  (Meteorological  Messenger,  1922,  pages  25-43.  In  Russian.) 

Suzuki,  Shigehisa.  Karafuto  Nikki.  With  Notes  and  Addenda  by  Takeshiro  Matsuura.  (2  Vols.  Tokyo,  1860.) 

Talko-Hkynce’wicz,  J.  D.  The  Ancient  Inhabitants  of  Asia.  (Russian  Anthropological  Journal,  Moscow,  1900,  No.  2. 
In  Russian.) 

Tallgben,  A.  M.  Chapitres  d’archeologie  Siberienne.  (Collection  Tovostine  des  Antiquites  Prehistoriques  de  Minous- 
sinsk  conservees  chezle  Dr.  Hedman  a  Vasa-Societe  Finlandaise  d’archeologie,  Helsingfors,  1917.) 

Teploukhov,  S.  A.  An  Account  on  Excavations  of  Neolithic  Burial  Places  made  in  the  Valley  of  the  Yenisei  River  in 
1920  and  1921.  (Geographic  Messenger,  1922,  Vol.  I,  Part  I,  p.  21.  In  Russian.) 

Tolmachoff,  J.  P.  Along  the  Chukchee  Shore  of  the  Arctic  Sea.  (St.  Petersburg,  1911,  with  a  map.  In  Russian.) 

Tyushov,  W.  N.  Along  the  Western  Coast  of  Kamchatka  (Memoirs  of  the  Imperial  Russian  Geographical  Society  on 
General  Geography,  Vol.  XXXVII,  No.  2,  St.  Petersburg,  1906,  pp.  I-XII-t-1-514,  in  Russian). 

Tobii,  R.  Etude  Archeologiques  et  Ethnologiques.  Les  Aino  des  lies  Kouriles.  (Journal,  College  of  Science,  Imperial 
University  of  Tokyo,  Vol.  XLII,  Tokyo,  1919-1921.) 

- .  Etude  Archeologiques  et  Ethnologiques  Populations  prehistoriques  de  la  Mandchourie  Meridional.  (Journal, 

College  of  Science,  Tokyo  Imperial  University,  Vol.  XXXVI,  1913-1915.) 

Tobii,  R.,  and  Kimiko  Tobii.  Etudes  Archeologiques  et  Ethnologiques  Populations  primitives  de  la  Mongolia  Orientale 
(Journal,  College  of  Science,  Tokyo  Imperial  University,  Vol.  XXXVI,  1913-1914). 

V itkovsky,  N.  J.  Results  of  Excavations  of  Ancient  Burial-Places  of  the  Stone  Age.  (Bull.,  East-Siberian  Division,  Rus¬ 
sian  Geograph.  Society,  1880,  Vol.  XII,  No.  1,  p.  6.  In  Russian.) 

- .  Brief  Account  on  the  Excavation  of  a  Burial  of  the  Stone  Age  made  in  July  1880.  (Bull.,  East-Siberian  Division, 

Russian  Geographical  Society,  Vol.  XI,  Nos.  3-4,  pages  1-12.  In  Russian.) 

- .  Report  on  Excavations  of  Burial  Places  of  the  Stone  Age  on  the  Left  Bank  of  the  Angara  River  in  the  Province  of 

Irkutsk  made  in  the  Summer  of  1881.  (Bull.,  East-Siberian  Division,  Imperial  Russian  Geographical  Society, 
Vol.  XIII,  Nos.  1—2,  pages  1-36.  In  Russian.) 

Wissleb,  Clabk.  The  American  Indian.  (2d  edition,  New  York,  1922.) 

Witsen,  Nicolaas.  Noord  en  Oost  Tartarye  Amsterdam.  (Vols.  I— II,  2d  edition,  1705.  First  edition,  1622.) 

Wbangel,  Febdinand  von.  Siberia  and  Polar  Sea.  (London,  1840.) 

Uvaboff,  A.  S.,  Count.  The  Archaeology  of  Russia.  (Vol.  I:  The  Stone  Age.  Moscow,  1881.  In  Russian.) 

Yankovsky,  M.  Kitchen  Refuse  and  Stone  Implements  found  on  the  shore  of  the  Amur  Bay.  (Bull.,  East-Siberian  Divi¬ 
sion,  Russian  Geographical  Society,  Vol.  XII,  Nos.  2-3,  pages  92-93.  In  Russian.) 

Ye^enev,  A.  A  Note  on  the  Archaeology  of  the  Environs  of  Irkutsk.  (Bull.,  East-Siberian  Division,  Russian  Geographical 
Society,  1894,  Vol.  XXV,  No.  1.  In  Russian.) 

Yebmolayeff,  A.  K.  To  the  Archaeology  of  the  Environs  of  Kansk.  (Siberian  Archives,  1912,  No.  4,  pages  237-243.  In 
Russian.) 


INDEX 


Abbo,  excavations  of,  42 
Administrative  divisions  and  geography,  16 
Afontova  Mountain,  23 
Africa,  iron  from,  40 

AgapitofT,  N.  N.,  discovers  neolithic  relics,  27 
Aino  clay  pots,  76 

Kamchadal  pottery,  30 
Kurilian,  in  Japanese  trade,  37 
pottery,  75 

women,  wooden  combs  of,  72 
Ainos,  32,  35 

boats  of,  71 
Kurilian,  74 
Northern,  19 
of  Yezo,  37 

relation  of,  to  Kamchadal,  70 
Alaid  Island,  tradition  on,  63 
Alans,  bronze  culture  of,  39 
Alaska,  15 

Eskimo  women’s  knives,  53 
Aleut,  fish  hooks  of,  29 
lamps,  67,  68 
Aleutian  Islands,  V,  6 

excavations  on,  42 
implements  of,  41 
Japanese  shipwrecks  at,  10 

Altai,  32 

metals  of,  39 
stone  artifacts  of,  33 
Alutor  River,  2, 10 
Alutorsk,  settlement  built,  2 
Amanino,  dialect  of,  16 
village,  16 

America,  connected  with  Asia,  3 
immigration  from,  16 

American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  Y,  VI,  67 
Americanoids,  16 

Americans,  inhabitants  of  Kamchatka,  16 
Amur  River,  1 

canneries  on,  58 
neolithic  site,  28 
shellmounds  of,  34 

Anadyr,  11 

River,  1,  5,  10 
Anadyrsk,  1,  2,  10,  16 
Anau  1,  neolithic  sites  of,  35 
Anderson,  J.  G.,  on  neolithic  industry,  34 
Andrews,  R.  C.,  25 
Angara,  climate  of,  36 

River,  neolithic  bones  from,  31 
neolithic  finds,  27 
neolithic  grave  at,  32 
,  palaeolithic  sites,  25 
Valley,  palaeolithic  finds,  24 
Animals,  domesticated  of  Kamchatka,  17 
Anna  Ioanovna,  Empress,  10 
Anthropological  Society  of  Tokyo,  75 
Anthropology,  75 

Antillean  islanders,  clay  used  as  food,  66 
Antreyevsky  Lake,  neolithic  dwellings  at,  31 
neolithic  finds,  26 
Antzyferoff,  Chief,  11 
Arctic  Ocean,  1 

Russian  navigators  in  the,  6 
Arkhangelsk,  5 
Artifacts  discovered,  47 

in  Angara  Valley,  24 
in  Yenisei  Valley,  24 


Aryans  Din-lin,  70 
Asia,  connected  with  America,  2 
Northern,  3 

osteological  remains  in,  32 
Asiatic  Expedition  to  Gobi,  33 
Assyria,  bronze  culture  of,  39 
Atlassov,  the  Cossack,  on  pottery,  73 
visited  Kamchatka,  1 
Aurignacian  Epoch,  24 
Avacha  Bay,  5,  6,  9,  42 

excavations  at,  41 
Kamchadal,  tribute  from,  11 
Azilian  epoch,  25,  29 
Baikal  Lake,  ceramics  of,  30 

iron  objects  from,  39 
neolithic  dwellings  at,  31 
neolithic  people  of,  65 
neolithic  relics  of,  32 
neolithic  site,  27,  28 
Region,  77 

Balagansk  District,  neolithic  finds,  27 
Barthold,  W.  W.,  Prof.,  10 
Bashirov,  P.  N.,  VI 
Beresov  district,  neolithic  finds,  26 
Berg,  L.  S.,  Professor,  3,  6,  7,  8,  69 
Bergman,  Sten,  21 
Bering,  Vitus,  4,  8 

Expeditions,  2,  4 
Sea,  1,  2,  47,  48 
Strait,  1,  7,  15 
Bii  River,  24 
Biisk,  24 

neolithic  finds,  26 
Billings,  Joseph,  7 

Bishop,  Carl  Whitting,  on  neolithic  man,  35 

Bison  priscus,  15 

Block  house,  Russian,  63 

Bogatyrevskaya  Bay,  excavations  at,  41 

Bogdanovich,  Karl,  15 

Bogoras,  Waldemar,  on  Japanese  trading,  37 

on  the  reindeer  Chukchee,  66 
Bolshaya  Reka,  dialect  of,  16 
Bolsheretsk,  attacked,  10,  11,  57 
Bone  industry,  31 
Boris  Godunoff,  Czar,  12 
Boule,  M.,  on  polished  stone,  34 
Bowers,  St.,  author,  29 
Broca,  20 
Bronze  culture,  38 
Burney,  James,  7 
Buryat  huts,  65 

Byalynitzky-Birula,  A.  A.,  on  climate,  36 
California  Indians,  fish  hooks  of,  29 
Cape  North,  7 

Carib  islanders,  clay  used  as  food,  66 
Carnegie  Museum  of  Pittsburgh,  7,  15 
Carolinas,  clay  used  as  food,  66 
Catherine  I,  4 

Catherine  II,  abolished  caravans  to  Peking,  12 
Cattle  breeding,  38 
Ceramics,  Siberian,  30 
Chamberlain,  Basil  Hall,  40 

on  pottery,  72 

Chardin,  Teilhard  de,  25 

Chekanovsky,  A.,  24 

Chersky,  I.  D.,  24 

Chichagov  island,  6 

China,  ancient,  bronze  culture  of,  39 


83 


84 


Index 


China,  iron  workers  of,  40 

Northern,  palaeolithic  finds,  33 
old  man  of,  25 
Chinese  annals,  70 

inhabitants  of  Kamchatka,  16 
Chirikov,  Alexei,  with  expedition  to  Kamchatka,  4,  5 
Christianity  of  Kamchadal,  20 
Siberia,  35 
Chuds,  dolichocephalic,  32 
Chukchee,  16 

boats,  71 
huts,  65 

in  Japanese  trade,  37 
kettles  of  modern,  77 
Peninsula,  15 
reindeer,  66 

Chukotski  Expedition,  7,  16 

Clay,  pots  and  pans,  69,  74,  76 

Climate  of  Kamchatka,  18 

Coins,  Japanese,  56,  62 

Company  Land,  8 

Cook,  James,  7 

Cooking  vessels,  73,  75 

Cossack  chiefs,  cause  uprising,  10 

Cossacks,  11 

Cows  of  Kamchatka,  17 

Crimean  war,  military  camp  of,  43 

Cumberland  Gulf,  stone  lamps  of,  67 

Dali,  W.  H.,  on  excavations,  42 

Damian  Pomortzev  (Gonza),  10 

sent  to  Russia,  9 
de  Chardin,  Teilhard,  25 
Delisle,  Louis,  de  la  Croy&re,  5,  6 
Denbei,  taken  prisoner,  9 
Denmark,  shellmounds  of,  34 
Dershavin,  zoologist,  63 
Deshneff  Cape,  7 

Deshnev,  Cossack,  founded  Anadyrsk,  1 
Dialects  of  Kamchatka,  16 
Dinlins,  32 

Dittmar,  Carl  von,  on  clay  vessels,  69,  72,  73 
on  traditions,  63 
Dogs  of  Kamchatka,  17 
Domestic  animals,  17 
Dudinskoye,  neolithic  finds,  26 
Dune  dwellers,  25 
Dwellings  of  neolithic  period,  31 
East  Cape,  7 

East-Siberian  tribes,  navigation  by,  71 
Elizabeth,  Empress,  12 
Esashi,  pottery,  69,  75 
Eskimo,  Alaskan,  pottery  of,  77 

Asiatic,  kettles  of  modern,  77 
lamps,  41,  61,  68 
metal  used  by,  40 
Etamenk  River,  60 

Ethnological  Division  of  the  Kamchatka  Expedition,  V 
Europe,  bronze  age  in,  38 
metals  in,  37 
neolithic  dugouts  of,  30 
reindeer  age,  27 
western,  25 

neolithic  industry  of,  29 
European  influence,  on  bronze  period,  39 
inhabitants  of  Kamchatka,  16 
Excavations,  localities  where  made,  41 
Far  East,  Russian  Government  in,  1 
Fisher,  G.  W.,  5 
Flint,  use  of,  41 

Fominskoye,  palaeolithic  stratum  at,  24 


French  explorers  in  Mongolia,  33 

Fur  tribute,  or  Yassak,  12,  13 

Gabriel,  10,  11 

Gama  Land,  5,  8 

Gapanovich,  I.  I.,  21 

Geographical  Society,  V 

Geography  and  administrative  divisions,  16 

Georgia,  clay  used  as  food,  66 

Gilyak,  66,  70 

Gishiginsk,  16 

Glaskovo,  neolithic  graveyards  at,  31 

Gmelin,  Johann,  5 

Gobi  Desert,  neolithic  finds  at,  33 

Godunoff  Boris,  Czar,  12 

Golder,  F.  A.,  2 

Golyghino,  inhabitants  of,  19 

Gorostchenko,  anthropologist,  32 

Goryunova,  Madame  E.  I.,  VI 

Gower,  C.  D.,  66 

Granger,  Walter,  neolithic  finds  by,  33 

Great  River,  dialect  of  region  of,  16 

Greenland,  iron  in,  40 

Gschnitz  period,  36 

Guerye,  Vladimir,  3 

Guiana  Indians,  clay  used  as  food,  66 

Hachijo  Island,  earthenware  pans  used  in,  74 

Hanover,  library  of,  3 

Health  of  Kamchadal,  20 

Heye,  I.  I.,  author,  29 

History  of  Kamchadal,  1 

Hokkaido,  pits  of,  76 

Honan,  neolithic  station,  34 

Horses  of  Kamchatka,  17 

Hough,  Walter,  67 

Hundji,  57 

Hungarian  influence,  on  bronze  period,  39 
Huns,  32,  39 

Indians,  California,  fish  hooks  of,  29 
Indighirka,  2 
Indonesians,  boats  of,  71 
Interglacial  Epochs,  15 
Iranian  people,  bronze  culture  of,  39 
Irkutsk,  24 

neolithic  graveyards  near,  31 
neolithics  relics,  27 
Iron  age  of  Siberia,  39 
cooking  vessels,  75 
Ishim  River,  neolithic  finds,  26 
Iturup  Island,  neolithic  sites  on,  72 
Japan,  34 

bronze  age  in,  40 
clay  pots  from,  74 
friendly  relations  with  Russians,  7 
neolithic  man  in,  35 
pots  from,  75,  76 
Japanese  at  Osernaya,  57 
boats,  71 
coins,  56,  62 
culture,  64 
fishermen,  59 

Government,  prohibits  navigation,  37 
inhabitants  of  Kamchatka,  16 
iron  vessels,  72 

language  taught  to  Russians,  10 
ordered  killed,  11 

shipwrecks  near  Kamchatka  shore,  9 
Jesuit  explorers,  French,  25 
Jochelson,  Mrs.,  59 

measurements  of  Kamchadals  by,  19 
Jokhol,  neolithic  finds  at,  33 


Index 


Kalgan,  pottery  found  at,  33 
Kamchadal,  canoes  of,  71 
chiefs,  11 
clay  pots,  75 

country  and  somatology  of,  15 
decorations,  72 
dog  sledge,  51,  52 
dwelling,  65,  66 
economic  organization  of,  21 
fish  hooks  of,  29 
fishermen,  59 
fishers,  food  of,  42 
fishing  season,  17 
geological  past,  15 
hammered  metal,  64 
implements  of,  41 
laborers,  43 
lamps,  68 
language,  16 
measurements  of,  20 
methods  of  cooking,  69 
pottery,  70,  73 
psychology  of,  12 
somatology  of,  19 
take  Japanese  prisoners,  9 
uprising  of,  10 
use  of  metals  by,  37 
Kamchatka,  8,  11,  56,  57 

agriculture  of,  18 
clay  as  food,  66 
clay  vessels,  74,  75 
climate  of,  19 
conquest  of  begun,  1 
domestic  animals,  17 
excavations,  23,  41,  68 
Expedition,  publications  on,  V 
health  of,  21 

Japanese  works  on  shores  of,  9 
metallic  artifacts,  64 
metals  in  prehistoric,  37 
military  camp,  43 
Peninsula,  map  of,  14 
peopling  of,  16 
population  of,  65 
pottery  from,  73,  76 
reindeer,  17 
River,  11 
sables  of,  13 

sanitary  conditions  of,  20 
shore  of,  15 
stone  lamps  of,  67 
tradition  on,  63 
Valley,  51 

Kansk,  neolithic  finds,  26 

River,  neolithic  finds  at,  27 
Kara  Sea,  neolithic  finds,  26,  35 
Karagas,  tribe,  31 
Karsky  tundra,  35 
Kasimeroff,  pilot,  7 
Kastchenko,  N.  F.,  23 
Katun  River,  24 

Kavran  artifacts  found,  52,  54,  55,  56 
River,  excavations  at,  41 

human  bones  found  at,  20 
pits  on,  51,  65 
site,  pottery  from,  56,  76 
Kayak  Island,  6 

Kerensky,  A.,  abolished  fur  tribute  of  Siberians,  13 
Khalakhtyrka  Village,  44,  45 
River,  44 


Khalakhtyrka  Lake,  44 
Kharyusovo,  blind  people  of,  20 
Khoroshikh,  P.  P.,  finds  neolithic  relics,  28 
Kirensk  district,  neolithic  site,  27 
Kirghiz-Kaisak,  32 
Kitchen  middens,  33,  34 
Kitoi  River,  neolithic  graveyards  at,  31 
Kiu-Siu  Islands,  70 
Klementz,  D.  A.,  on  bronze  age,  38,  39 
Kluchevskoye,  climate  of,  18,  19 
vegetables  of,  18 
Kodiak  Islands,  6 

stone  lamps  of,  67 
Koluchin  Island,  7 
Kolyma  River,  1,  4,  7 
Komandor  Islands,  16 
Komarov,  V.  L.,  V 

Konradi,  S.  A.,  on  Kamchatka  volcanoes,  V 
Kopytoff,  M.  D.,  24,  26 
Korea,  34 

iron  workers  of,  40 
Korean  Strait,  70 

Koreans,  inhabitants  of  Kamchatka,  16 
Koryak,  16,  51 

boats,  71 
clay  as  food,  66 
excavations,  77 
huts,  65 

in  Japanese  trade,  37 
inhabitants  of  Kamchatka,  16 
site,  pottery  from,  76 
tribute  imposed  on,  1 
Koshevnikoff,  N.  J.,  7 
Kosma  Shultz  (Soza),  10 
Kosogol  Lake,  neolithic  sites  at,  32,  33 
Kozmin,  N.  M.,  finds  neolithic  site,  27 
Krasheninnikoff,  S.  P.,  5,  12,  16,  64 
on  cooking,  69,  70 
on  pit  dwellings,  65,  66 
Krasilnikoff,  Andrei,  5 
Krasnoyarsk,  23,  24 

neolithic  burials  near,  32 
Krause,  A.,  69 
Krijanovsky,  N.  N.,  VI 
Kronotzkoye  Lake,  tradition  on,  63 
Kulki,  fort,  51 
River,  56 

climate  of,  19 
excavations  at,  41 
pits  on,  50,  65 
site,  pottery  from,  76 
Kunashiri  Island,  neolithic  sites  on,  72 
Kuril  Lake,  56,  63,  64 

bears  on,  59 
excavations  at,  41,  60 
implements,  55 
pits  near,  65 

specimens  from,  61,  62,  72 
stone  lamps  of,  67 
Kurilian  Ainos,  clay  pots  of,  69 
decorations,  72 
Islands,  70 

charted,  8 
neolithic  sites  of,  35 
pottery  of,  72,  75 
tradition,  63 

Kurilians,  use  of  metals  by,  37 

weave  grass  baskets,  71 
words,  16 
Lamps,  stone,  67 


Index 


86 

Lamut,  clay  as  food,  66 
Lao-Khe  River,  palaeolithic  finds,  33 
Leibnitz,  note  to  Peter  I,  3 
Lena  River,  1,  5 

neolithic  site,  27 
Lesseps,  M.  de,  10 
Licetat,  F.,  25 

Linkov,  A.  J.,  finds  neolithic  station,  27 
Little  White  Lake,  25 
Liu-Kiu  Islands,  70 
Lopatka,  9 

Cape,  16 

Lushan,  Felix  von,  40 
MacCurdy,  G.  G.,  on  bronze  age,  40 
on  excavations,  42 
Magdalenian  period,  24, 36 
Mammoth,  remains  found  of,  15 
Manchuria,  excavations  in,  42 

neolithic  finds  in,  35 
shellmounds  of,  34 
Manchus,  iron  workers,  40 
Margaritoff,  V.,  finds  neolithic  relics,  28 
Matsumura,  Akira,  70,  75 
Meadow-sweet,  45 
Mekhlin,  Major,  11 
Mental  traits  of  old  Kamchadal,  11 
Menton,  France,  excavations  at,  42 
Merhart,  G.  von,  23 
Metals  in  prehistoric  Kamchatka,  37 
Meteorological  Division,  18 
Miller,  Herard,  5 
Minusinsk,  24 

bronze  industry  of,  38 
Museum,  bronze  objects  in,  39 
neolithic  finds  in,  26 
Miocene  Epoch  of  Kamchatka,  15 
Mio-Pliocene  Epochs  of  Kamchatka,  15 
Mongolia,  iron  workers  of,  40 
neolithic  stations,  26 
northern,  32 

palaeolithic  remains  in  inner,  25 
pottery  of,  34 

the  inner,  neolithic  relics  of,  33 
Mongoloid  invaders,  35,  70 
Mongols,  iron  workers,  40 
Morozko,  Cossack,  sent  to  Kamchatka,  1 
Moscow,  fur  tribute  sent  to,  12 
Mousterian  scrapers,  24,  25 
Mukhor  Bay,  neolithic  site,  27 
Muller,  G.  F.,  7 
Munro,  on  pots,  72,  76 
Musashi,  earthenware  pans  used  in,  74 
Nadezhda,  7 

Nalacheva  Cape,  excavations  at,  41,  46,  47,  48 
Lake,  56 

excavations  at,  44 
pits  near,  65 
pots  or  pans  from,  73 
River,  excavations  near,  45 
Nalghinsk  Mountains,  2 
Naridata,  Hundzi,  55 
Navigation,  71 
Neanderthal  man,  25 
Nelson,  N.  C.,  25 

neolithic  finds  at  Gobi,  33 
Neolith,  The  Siberian,  25 
Neolithic  culture  of  the  far  north,  35 
Siberia,  39 

finds  of  Gobi  desert,  33 

man,  skeletal  remains  in  Siberia,  31 


Neolithic  period  of  Western  Europe,  31 
in  Siberia,  38 
sites,  27,  28,  35 

near  Siberia,  32 

Nephrite,  30 
Nets,  thong,  17 
Nippon,  7 

Island,  pots  of,  75 
Nishne-Kamchatsk,  10 
Nordenskiold,  40 
Nordics,  of  Northern  Europe,  32 
Novitzky,  W.  M.,  26 
Ob  region,  palaeolithic  station,  24,  25 
Ob  River,  Neolithic  finds,  26 
Obdorsk,  neolithic  finds,  26 
Obruchev,  W.  A.,  15 
Okhotsk,  2,  16,  58 

Sea,  1,  10,  56,  63 
cold  of,  18 
neolithic  site,  28 
salmon  in,  61 
Oklan  River,  2 
Oklansk,  2 

Olekma  River,  neolithic  site,  27 

Olkhon  country,  neolithic  sites  in,  28 

Opala  River,  9 

Orok-Tungus,  70 

Osaka,  9 

Osernaya,  57 

River,  16,  55,  56,  59,  60,  61,  63 
excavations  at,  41 
pits  on,  65 

Ostrovskikh,  on  iron  manufacture,  39 
Ostyak  people,  35 
Ovchinnikov,  M.  P.,  24,  27 

discovers  neolithic  graveyards  near 
Irkutsk,  31 

on  iron  manufacture,  39 
Ovifak,  iron  in,  40 
Pacific  coast,  neolithic  finds,  26 
Ocean,  18 

Palae-Asiatic  peoples,  cooking  by,  69 
Palaeolith,  the  Siberian,  23 
Palaeolithic  finds,  24 

in  Mongolia,  25 
man,  25 

remains  in  inner  Mongolia,  25 
Palan,  excavations  at,  50 
pottery  from,  61 

Paramushir  Island,  neolithic  sites  on,  35,  72 
tradition  on,  63 
Paratunka  River,  42 
village,  42 
Paren  River,  10 

Patkanoff,  S.  A.,  investigator  of  Siberia,  21 
Patkha  River,  neolithic  site,  28 
Pavlutzky,  Major,  10,  11 
Pechenyegs,  32 
Peking,  caravans  to,  12 
Penshina  Bay,  1 
River,  2 

Peoples  of  Asiatic  Russia,  Handbook,  V 
Peredolsky,  V.  V.,  26 

finds  neolithic  graves,  32 
Perfilyev,  Boris,  49 
Pestchana  Bay,  neolithic  site,  27 
Peter  I,  interest  in  Kamchata,  2 

instructions  for  Bering  expedition,  4 
Petri,  B.  E.,  23,  31,  65,  77 

ceramic  finds  by,  30 


Index 


87 


Petri,  B.  E.,  discovers  neolithic  relics,  27,  28,  29,  31,  32 
excavations  near  Irkutsk,  24 
on  bronze  age,  38 
on  iron  manufacture,  39 
Petrograd,  Academy  of  Sciences  in,  23 
Petropavlovsk,  11,  44,  45,  56,  60,  63,  64 
climate  of,  18,  19 
excavations  at,  41 
made  capital,  16 
specimens  from,  62 
Pleistocene  Age,  33 

epoch  of  Kamchatka,  15 
period,  29 

Pliocene  epoch  of  Kamchatka,  15 
Point  Barrow,  stone  lamps  of,  67 
Poliakoff,  I.  S.,  26 
Polovtzy,  32 
Popoff,  Simeon,  5 
Population  of  Kamchatka,  65 
Porcelain  cup,  Japanese,  53 
Port  Arthur,  shellmounds  of,  34 
Pots  or  pans  with  ears  inside,  73 
Pottery,  69,  70,  71,  72 
of  Ainos,  72 
of  Aino-Kamchadal,  30 
of  Kamchadal,  69 
of  Kurilians,  74 
of  north  of  Kamchatka,  76 
Primorskaya  Province,  16 

Pumpelly,  Raphael,  explorations  in  Turkestan,  35 
Puxov,  Dr.,  on  health  of  Kamchadal,  20 
Quaternary  Period  in  Kamchatka,  15 
Radloff,  W.  W.,  on  Siberian  bronze  age,  38 
Rasava  Island,  fairs  on,  37 
Rasputino,  neolithic  finds,  27 

neolithic  grave  at,  32 
Riaboushinsky,  F.  P.,  V 

Expedition  of,  18,  63 
Rindzo,  Mamiya,  on  iron  kettles,  72,  74 
Riviere,  Emile,  on  excavations,  42 
Rostovtzeff,  Prof.,  on  bronze  culture,  39 
Roth,  W.  E.,  66 
Rudenko,  S.  I.,  26 

Russia,  Japanese  prisoners  sent  to,  9 
kurgan  builders  of,  32 
neolithic  dugouts  of,  30 
Southern,  bronze  culture  of,  39 
Russian  Academy  of  Sciences,  V,  5,  23 
block  houses,  64 

Government,  introduced  agriculture,  18 
houses,  57 

Imperial  Geographical  Society,  V 
inhabitants  of  Kamchatka,  16 
invasion,  37 
iron  vessels,  72 
-Japanese  War,  21,  56,  57 
settlers,  19 

Russianization  of  the  Kamchadal,  12 
Sable  as  tribute,  1,  13 
Sacae,  32 

Sacians,  bronze  culture  of,  39 
Sahara,  no  bronze  age  south  of,  40 
Sakhalin  Ainos,  clay  pots  of,  69 
clay  pot,  75 

Island,  pottery  of,  70,  72,  74 
Salmon  factories,  58 
Salt  Lake,  excavations  at,  41,  42 
Samarovskoye,  neolithic  finds,  26 
Samoyeds,  35 
Sanime,  9 


Sanitary  conditions  among  Kamchadal,  20 
Sapporo,  pottery  from,  75 
Sarmatians,  bronze  culture  of,  39 
Sarycheff,  Gavriil,  7 
Satzuma,  9 

Savenkov,  I.  T.,  23,  26 

finds  neolithic  graves,  32 
Savoiko  village,  excavations  at,  41 
pits  at,  43 

Schmidt,  P.  J.,  V,  63 

Schrenk,  Leopold  von,  69 

Scythian  area,  bronze  culture  of,  39 

Scythians,  32 

Sea  bears,  1 

Sea  lions,  17 

Sea  otters,  1 

Second  Tribute  Commission,  13 
Sedanka,  dialect  of,  16 
Shaba,  Ensign,  57 
Shabarakh  Usu,  25 
Shaphiroff,  Baron,  3 
Shelagski  Cape,  7 
Sheldon,  W.,  66 
Shellmounds,  33,  34 
Shestakoff,  Afanassy,  10,  11 
Shikotan  manufactured  pots,  jars,  etc.,  72 
Shirokogoroff,  S.  M.,  finds  neolithic  deposits,  28 
on  health  of  Kamchadal,  20 

Shogunate,  8 

Shoguns,  restrictive  legislation  of,  9 
Shukov,  B.  S.,  VI 
Shumagin  islands,  6 

Shumashir  Island,  neolithic  site,  35,  71,  72 
Sira-Murem  River,  palaeolithic  finds,  33 
Siberia,  V,  5,  7,  15 

age  of  metals  in,  38 
ceramics  of,  30 
Chuds  of,  32 
clay  as  food,  66 

climate  during  neolithic  period,  35 
dwellings  of  neolithic  period,  31 
economic  organization  of,  21 
iron  age  of,  39 
iron  workers  of,  40 
metals  in,  37 

neolithic  stone  industry  of,  29 
palaeolithic  dwellers  of,  24 
palaeolithic  man  of,  25 
pots  from,  76 
Russian  conquerors  of,  1 
Russians  attracted  to,  12 
stone  age  in,  23,  26 
stone  industry  of,  29 
Siberian  Americanoids,  15,  16 

continent,  winter  of,  18 
natives,  fur  tribute  abolished,  13 
neolithic  characteristics,  28 
neolithic  pottery,  30 
Siem-Pi,  iron  workers,  40 
Siwusk  Cape,  excavations  at,  41,  59,  60 
Slovtzov,  J.  G.,  neolithic  dwellings  found  by,  26,  31 
Srriall  Patom  River,  neolithic  site,  27 
Soapstone,  use  of,  41 
Sokolov,  B.  M.,  VI 
Soliitrean  period,  24 
Somatology  of  the  Kamchadal,  19 
Sopochnoye  village,  16 
Sosnovsky,  G.  P.,  23 

finds  neolithic  grave,  32 
Sosva  River,  neolithic  finds,  26 


88 


Index 


Sotnikoff,  Lieutenant,  57 
Soza,  sent  to  Russia,  9 
Spanberg,  Martin,  7,  8 

appointed  to  Bering  Expedition,  4 
Spassky,  G.,  author,  73 
Spear-grass,  45 

State  Island  and  Company  Land,  8 
Stary  Ostrog,  excavations  at,  41 
Stchuchya  River,  neolithic  sites  on,  26,  35 
Stchukino,  neolithic  site,  27 
Steensby,  H.  P.,  author,  65 
Stefanson,  Yilhjamur,  on  stone  lamps,  67 
St.  Elias  Island,  6 
Steller,  G.  W.,  5 

on  cooking,  69 
on  homage  to  iron,  64 
Sternberg,  on  clay  as  food,  66 
Stinnikov,  A.,  9,  11 
Stone  Age  in  Siberia,  23 
artifacts  of,  27 

Stone  implements,  source  material  for,  41 
industry,  29 
lamps,  67 

St.  Lawrence  Bay,  7 

Island,  pottery  of,  77 

St.  Paul,  5,  6 
St.  Peter,  5,  6 

St.  Petersburg,  Bering  returned  to,  4 

Japanese  captives  brought  to,  7,  10 
Sukachev,  V.  N.,  on  neolithic  culture,  35 
Suzuki,  75 

Syeroglaska  village,  excavations  at,  41 
Talko-Hryncewicz,  J.  D.,  finds  neolithic  relics,  28 
Tallgren,  A.  M.,  on  bronze  age,  38,  39 
Tanaka,  N.,  on  earthenware  pans,  74 
Tarinskaya  Bay,  42 
Tartary,  8 

Temperature  of  soil,  19 
Teploukhov,  S.  A.,  26 
Tighil,  chief  of  Kamchadal,  11,  12 
climate  of,  18,  19 
dialect  of,  16 
excavations  at,  41 
pits  on,  50 
River,  1,  2 
Titov,  A.  G.,  VI 

on  flint  implements,  41 
Tlinkit  Indians,  69 
Tobol  River,  neolithic  finds,  26 
Tobolsk  Province,  neolithic  finds,  26 
Togo,  Admiral,  56 
Tokyo,  Anthropological  Society,  75 

Museum  of  Imperial  University  in,  75 
Tolmachoff,  I.  P.,  7,  15 
Tomsk,  excavations  near,  23 
Tong-Hou,  34 

iron  workers  of,  40 
Torii,  Mrs.,  on  neolithic  man,  40 
Torii,  R.,  34 

neolithic  finds  by,  35 
on  food  of  Manchuria,  42 
on  Japanese  goods,  37 
on  Kurilian  tradition,  63 
on  neolithic  man,  40 
on  pottery,  70,  74,  75 
on  wooden  combs,  72 
Tovostin,  archaeologist,  39 
Traditions,  Kurilian,  63 
Transbaikalia,  bronze  from,  39 
Chuds  of,  32 
neolithic  site,  28 


Transbaikalia,  Steppes,  bronze  industry  of, 
38 


DEC 


Transuralian  lakes,  neolithic  finds,  26 
Tribute  Commissions,  13 
Tsuboi,  S.,  75,  76 
Tu-Kiu,  iron  industry  of,  38 
Tungus  inhabitants  of  Kamchatka,  16 
invaders,  35 
tents,  65 

Tunguso-Mongolic  conquerors,  70  *  “ 

Turkestan,  bronze  culture  of,  39 
explorations,  35 
Turkish  tribes,  70 
Turko-Mongolic  invaders,  32 
Tyan-Shan  Mountains,  32 
Tynshov,  W.  N.,  68 
Tyumen,  neolithic  dwellings  at,  31 
Uigurs,  32 
Ukamak  Island,  6 
Ukrainians,  immigrants,  57 
Ulan-Khad,  neolithic  dwellings  at,  31 
neolithic  site,  27 
Unga  River,  neolithic  site,  27 
Ural  Mountains,  neolithic  finds,  26 
U.  S.  National  Museum,  77 
Usuns,  blond,  32 

Uvaroff,  A.  C.,  neolithic  finds,  26 
Varkhoyansk  range  of  mountains,  2 
Verkhne-Kamchatsk,  attacked,  10,  11 

fortress  founded,  1 

Verkholensk  Mountain,  excavations  at,  24 
Verneau,  France,  excavations  at,  42 
Vitkovsky,  N.  L.,  discovers  neolithic  finds,  27,  31 
Vladivostok,  57,  64 

immigrants  from,  21 
Vlasov,  V.  A.,  V,  18,  19 
Walton,  Commander  of  Nadezhda,  7,  8 
Washington,  U.  S.  National  Museum  of,  77 
Weber,  E.  F.,  7 

West-European  archaeology,  24 
White  whales,  17 

Witsen,  Nicolaas,  on  clay  vessels,  73 
Wouhwang,  iron  workers,  40 
Wr angel,  Ferdinand  von,  7 
Wusuns,  blond,  32 
Yakut  huts,  64,  65 
Yakutsk,  11 

founded,  1 


UR9SRY  fijr  ff.g 


UWVEM»*.  w  fttiwus 


Yana,  2 

Yankovsky,  M.,  finds  neolithic  relics,  28 
Yang-Shao  culture,  34 
Yassak,  or  fur  tribute,  12,  13 
Yavino,  57 

hot  springs,  59 
inhabitants  of,  19 

Yeleneff,  A.,  discovers  neolithic  finds,  27 
Yelovka,  12 

River,  11 

Yenisei  River,  neolithic  finds,  26,  27 
palaeolithic  sites,  25 
Valley,  excavations  at,  24 
Yeniseians,  32 

Yeniseisk,  neolithic  finds,  26 
Yershi,  neolithic  sites,  27 
Yezo,  8,  70,  72 
Ainos  of,  37 

iron  pots  of,  76 
clay  pan  from,  74,  75 
Yukaghir,  16 

huts,  65 


JOCHELSON 


PLATE  1 


Types  of  Kamchadal  men,  women  and  girls. 


LIBRARY 
or-  THE 

UNIVERSITY  Cf  ILLINOIS 


JOCHELSON 


PLATE  2 


A.  Elders  of  the  villages  of  the  western  shore  of  Kamchatka. 

B.  Group  of  blind  men  and  women  of  the  village  Kharyusovo 


library 

OF  THE 


HM01S 


JOCHELSON 


PLATE  3 


A.  Two  boats  bridged  in  order  to  carry  author’s  party  across  the  Avacha  River. 

B.  The  same  bridged  boats  carrying  the  author’s  cart  to  a  small  island  and  from  there  across  the  Avacha 

River  to  the  village  Savoiko.  The  horses  are  forced  to  swim  across.  The  river  is  not  deep  and  the 
laborers  are  punting  the  boats  with  long  poles. 

C.  Three  bridged  boats  carrying  the  author’s  party  and  laborers  from  the  mouth  of  the  Tigil  River  to  its 

tributary,  the  Kulki  River.  The  laborers  are  punting  the  raft  along  the  bank. 


JOCHELSON 


PLATE  4 


A’  A  Kamchadal  storehouse  on  posts  which  serves  also  as  a  summer  dwelling. 
B.  Greek-Catholic  chapel  in  the  village  Kharyusovo. 


JOCHELSON 


PLATE  5 


A.  Inner  pond  on  Cape  Siwusk  in  Kuril  Lake.  In  the  foreground  is  the  author’s  camp  and  the  digging  of  two  pits. 

(See  p.  58.) 

B.  Unloading  the  boats,  preparatory  to  ascending  the  rapids  of  the  Osernaya  River. 

C.  When  rapids  were  encountered,  the  occupants  of  the  boat  disembarked  and  pulled  at  the  ropes  instead  of  the  oars. 


JOCHELSON 


PLATE  6 


A.  (2959-2967).  Lance  and  arrow  heads  of  quartzite. 

head  is  141  mm. 

B.  (2968-2987).  Lance  and  arrow  heads  of  obsidian. 

head  is  80  mm.  and  that  of  the  smallest  18  mm. 


About  one-half  natural  size;  the  length  of  the  largest 
About  three-fifths  natural  size;  length  of  the  largest 


B 


JOCHELSON 


PLATE  7 


1  (2988).  Man’s  knife  of  andesite,  with  wooden  handle. 

2  (2989).  Man’s  knife  of  quartzite,  with  wooden  handle. 

3  (2990).  Lance  head  of  silicified  slate. 

4  (2991).  Arrow  head  of  quartzite. 

5  (2992).  Drill  point  of  hornstone  schist,  with  wooden 

or  bone  handle.  Used  for  drilling  wood,  bone 
and  also  sinkers  of  volcanic  tuff. 

6  (2993).  Arrow  point  of  quartzite. 

7  (2994).  Arrow  point  with  straight  base,  of  silicified 

slate. 

8  (2995)  and  9  (2996) .  Arrow  point  with  rounded  base, 

of  silicified  slate. 

All  obtained  in  excavations  on  Kuril  Lake. 


10  (2997).  Drill  point  of  hornstone  schist. 

11  (2998).  Small  arrow  point  of  quartzite,  not  finished. 

12  (2999).  Small  adze  of  quartzite. 

13  (3000).  Curved  carving  knife  of  andesite,  with  handle. 

14  (3001).  Arrow  point  of  quartzite. 

15  (3002).  Curved  carving  knife  of  light-green  quartz 

schist. 

16  (3003).  Small  carving  knife  of  silicified  slate. 

17  (3004).  Small  arrow  point  of  quartzite,  unfinished. 
18-24  (3005-3011)  and  26-28  (3013-3015).  Scrapers  of 


quartzite. 

25  (3012)  and  29  (3016).  Scrapers  of  andesitic  obsidian. 
About  three-fifths  natural  size;  largest  specimen  93  mm.  long. 


JOCHELSON 


PLATE  8 


1  (3017).  Andesite  knife  for  carving  wood,  with  pro¬ 

jection  for  securing  it  to  wooden  or  bone 
handle. 

2  (3018).  Andesite  point  of  a  lance. 

3  (3019).  Skin  scraper  of  quartz  schist. 

4  (3020).  Skin  scraper  of  quartz  schist. 

5  (3021).  Fragment  of  an  andesite  point. 

6  (3022).  Spear  point  of  quartz  slate,  unfinished. 

7  (3023).  Andesite  point  of  a  lance. 

8  (3024),  9  (3025),  10  (3026).  Andesite  point  of  an  arrow. 
11  (3027).  Andesite  blade  of  a  lance. 


12  (3028).  Same  as  figure  8. 

13  (3029),  14  (3030).  Andesite  blade  of  a  lance, 

15  (3031).  Skin  scraper  of  silicified  slate. 

16  (3032).  Andesite  blade  of  a  lance. 

17  (3033),  18  (3034).  Andesite  blade  for  an  arrow, 

19  (3035).  Flint  blade  for  a  lance. 

20  (3036).  Arrow  point  of  quartz  schist. 

21  (3037).  Fragment  of  a  quartz  schist  point. 

22  (3038).  Flint  blade  for  a  lance,  unfinished. 

23  (3039).  Andesite  blade  for  a  lance. 


All  specimens  from  Kuril  Lake. 


JOCHELSON 


PLATE  9 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 
8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 
19 


(3168).  Adze  of  green  quartz  schist,  polished.  From  Kuril  Lake. 

(3169).  Adze  of  green  quartz  schist,  blade  polished.  From  Kuril  Lake. 
(3170).  Ax  of  jasper,  wholly  polished.  From  Kuril  Lake. 

(3171).  Ax  of  chalcedony  (agate),  partly  polished.  From  Kuril  Lake. 
(3172).  Ax  of  quartz  schist,  polished.  From  Kuril  Lake. 

(3173),  7  (3174).  Adze  of  green  quartz  schist,  polished.  From  Kuril  Lake. 
(3175).  Adze  of  hornstone  schist,  not  perfectly  polished.  From  Kavran. 
(3176).  Adze  of  quartz  schist.  From  Kavran. 

(3177).  Adze  of  jasper,  polished.  From  Kavran. 

(3178).  Adze  of  quartz  schist,  polished.  From  Kavran. 

(3179).  Fragment  of  an  adze  of  quartz  schist.  From  Kavran. 

(3180).  Chisel  of  jasper,  partly  polished.  From  Kavran. 

(3181).  Adze  of  agate,  polished.  From  Kavran. 

(3182).  Adze  of  jasper,  polished.  From  Kavran. 

(3183).  Adze  of  agate,  polished.  From  Kavran. 

(3184).  Adze  of  quartz  schist,  partly  polished.  From  Kavran. 

(3185).  Chisel  of  jasper,  polished.  Frorn  Kavran. 

(3186).  Adze  of  green  quartz  schist.  From  Kavran. 

The  largest  specimen  of  this  plate,  figure  4,  is  197  mm.  long. 


Oi  to 


JOCHELSON 


PLATE  10 


1  (3187).  Fish-hook  sinker  of  volcanic  andesitic  tuff  from  the  mouth  of  Kavran  River. 

(3188),  3  (3189).  Fish-hook  sinker  of  quartz  diorite  from  the  mouth  of  Kavran  River. 

(3190).  Fish-hook  sinker  of  diabase  porphyrite  from  the  mouth  of  Kavran  River. 

(3191),  6  (3192).  Fish-hook  sinker  of  volcanic  andesitic  tuff  with  a  drilled  hole,  from  mouth 
of  Kavran  River. 

7  (3193).  Fish-hook  sinker  of  volcanic  andesitic  tuff  grooved  all  around,  from  Kuril  Lake. 

8  (3194).  A  stone  pestle  of  quartzite  for  grinding  food,  from  Kuril  Lake. 


\ 


V 


LIBRARY 
07  THE 

UNIVERSITY  Clr  ::.L!N0!S 


JOCHELSON 


PLATE  11 


1  (3210).  Fish-hook  sinker  of  quartz  diorite. 

2  (3211).  Whetstone  of  porphyrite  for  sharpening 

bone  needles. 

3  (3212).  Whetstone  of  slate  for  polishing  bone 

implements. 

4  (3213).  Whetstone  of  porphyrite  for  polishing 

stone  implements. 

5  (3214).  Whetstone  of  tachylite  tuff. 

6  (3215),  7  (3216).  Whetstone  of  slate. 

8  (3195).  Fish-hook  sinker  of  diabase  porphyrite. 

9  (3196),  10  (3197).  Fragment  of  an  adze  of  dark- 

green  quartz  schist. 

11  (3198).  Adze  of  green  quartz  schist,  unfinished. 

12  (3199).  Adze  of  jasper,  partly  polished. 


13  (3200).  Drill  point  of  hornstone  schist. 

14  (3201).  Small  chisel  of  light-green  quartz  schist. 

15  (3202).  Small  arrow  point  of  andesitic  obsidian. 

16  (3203).  Fragment  of  an  adze  of  green  quartz 

schist. 

17  (3204),  18  (3205).  Adze  of  green  quartz  schist, 

partly  polished. 

19  (3206).  Adze  of  dark  reddish  jasper,  polished. 

20  (3207).  Adze  of  light-green  quartz  schist. 

21  (3208).  Fragment  of  an  adze  of  dark-green 

quartz  schist. 

22  (3209).  Chisel  of  quartz  schist,  only  the  edge  is 

polished. 


All  the  specimens  of  this  plate  were  obtained  in  excavations  on 
the  shores  of  the  Kuril  Lake.  Two-fifths  natural  size,  the  largest 
specimen  is  132  mm.  long. 


L'Sr'^Y 
OF  THE 


.I  i  .x,:i 


TY 


OF 


••  f 


!NO!S 


JOCHELSON 


PLATE  12 


1  to  7  (3090—3096).  Bone  awls  for  splitting  sinews  of  reindeer  and  sea-mammals  into  threads  for  sewing.  Made  of 
the  bones  of  bird  wings,  mostly  wild  geese  and  swans. 

8  to  10  (3097-3099).  Bone  awls  of  birds’  legbones,  used  when  sewing  skins. 

11,  12  (3100-3101).  Bone  awls  made  of  birds’  shoulder  blades. 

13  (3102).  Awl  made  of  wing  bone  of  a  swan.  Both  ends  may  be  used  when  sharpened. 

14  to  16  (3103-3105).  Bone  heads  of  bow-arrows,  partly  decayed. 

17  to  23  (3106-3112).  Bone  foreshafts  of  bow  arrows.  The  stem  of  the  foreshaft  entered  into  a  socket  of  the 
wooden  shaft.  A  sinew  cord  was  lashed  around  this  joint.  The  upper  end  of  the  foreshaft  is  bifurcated 
to  receive  a  stone  blade.  The  stem  of  the  blade  was  glued  to  the  bifurcation  and  fastened  by  a  sinew  thread, 
lashed  around  the  foreshaft,  on  which  notches  are  to  be  seen  for  attaching  the  lashing  thread.  The  bone 
foreshafts  are  partly  decayed. 

24  (3113),  25  (3114).  Broken  bone  point  which  could  be  used  as  a  head  of  an  arrow  of  a  bow  or  as  a  central 
prong  of  a  dart  for  water  birds.  Figure  24  is  in  a  decayed  state. 

26  (3115).  Represents  a  head  of  a  harpoon. 

All  specimens  were  obtained  in  excavations  on  the  shores  of  the  Kuril  Lake.  Three-fifths  natural  size. 


U3R&3Y 
OF  THE 

SSTY  CF  lUNOIS 


JOCHELSON 


PLATE  13 


A.  1  (3124).  Bone  marline-spike  for  untying  knots. 

2  (3125).  Similar  implement  with  broken-off  ends. 

3  (3126).  Bone  ball  with  an  ear  for  hanging,  possibly  as  a  decoration  to  woman’s  dress. 

4  (3127).  Bone  implement  for  unknown  purpose.  It  may  have  been  used  as  a  thong-dresser,  or 

to  attach  dogs  to  a  post. 

5  (3128).  Bone  root-digger. 

B.  (3130-3135).  Fragments  of  decayed  bone  implements. 

All  bone  implements  of  this  plate  were  discovered  in  pits  of  old  dwellings  on  the  shore  of  Kuril  Lake. 
Three-fifths  natural  size. 


JOCHELSON 


PLATE  14 


1  (2211).  Small  lamp  of  quartz  slate.  Nalacheva  Lake. 

2  (3232).  Cemented  fragments  of  lamp  of  diorite.  Kuril  Lake. 

3  (3136).  Lamp  of  quartz  slate.  From  Kuril  Lake. 

4  (3137).  Lamp  of  quartzite.  From  Kuril  Lake. 

5  (3138).  Lamp  of  sandstone.  From  Kuril  Lake. 

6  (3139).  Lamp  of  quartz  schist.  From  Kuril  Lake. 


7  (2921).  Lamp  of  quartz  schist.  From  Kavran  site 

8  (2922).  Lamp  of  quartzite.  From  Kavran. 

9  (2923).  Lamp  of  quartz  slate.  From  Kavran. 

10  (3143).  Lamp  of  quartz  slate.  From  Kuril  Lake. 

11  (3144).  Lamp  of  quartzite.  From  Kuril  Lake. 

12  (3145).  Lamp  of  quartz  schist.  From  Kuril  Lake. 


Figures  1,  2  half  natural  size,  figures  3  to  12  two-fifths  natural  size. 


LlBRi'SY 
0.:  THE 

L’,.!.:VZ?.'S'JY  u:  ILL'MOB 


JOCHELSON 


PLATE  15 


1  (3160).  Lamp  of  andesitic  lava. 

2  (3161).  Lamp  of  quartz  schist. 

3  (3162).  Lamp  of  andesitic  lava. 

4  (3103).  Lamp  of  quartz  schist. 


5  (3164).  Lamp  of  quartzite. 

6  (3165).  Lamp  of  andesitic  lava. 

7  (3166).  Lamp  of  quartz  schist. 

8  (3167).  Lamp  of  quartzite. 


All  specimens  from  Kuril  Lake.  About  two-fifths  natural  size. 


LIBRARY 
OF  THE 

i,M. .  T.p/SiTY  cf 


JOCHELSON 


PLATE  16 


1,  2.  Unknown  bone  implements.  May  be  stamps  to  decorate  clay  pots  when  the  clay  is  still  wet. 

3.  Fragment  of  harpoon  bone  head. 

4  and  5.  Seem  to  be  decayed  bone  prongs  of  a  bird  dart. 

6.  A  perforated  seal’s  tooth,  worn  as  ornament. 

7.  Bone  belt-buckle  without  decoration. 

8.  Bone  belt-buckle  ornamented  with  engraved  zigzags,  interwoven  curves  and  circles. 

9.  Half  decayed  bone  comb. 

10.  Comb-like  bone  implement,  as  it  seems  to  the  author,  for  impressing  parallel  lines  under  the  rim  of  clay  pots. 

11.  Bone  implement  for  stamping  clay  pots,  as  shown  on  potsherds  on  Plates  17  and  18. 

12.  Bone  implement  for  making  fillets  under  the  rim. 

13.  Bone  implement  for  ornamenting  clay  pots  by  puncturing. 


JOCHELSON 


PLATE  17 


1.  Clay  pot  with  ears  inside;  discovered  by  the  author  in  a  pit  of  an  old  Kamchadal  dwelling  on  the  shore  of  Nalaeheva  Lake. 

The  pot  was  split  in  two  places,  but  complete,  and  later  cemented  by  the  author.  The  splitting  may  be  regarded  as  a 
result  of  freezing  and  thawing  of  the  soil.  It  was  discovered  at  the  depth  of  3  feet  4  inches.  Digging  was  done  with 
great  care.  When  a  piece  of  the  rim  appeared,  the  spade  was  discarded  and  the  earth  from  and  around  the  pot  was 
taken  out  by  the  hands.  For  the  dimensions  of  the  pot  see  p.  48. 

2.  Similar  clay  pot  of  smaller  size,  discovered  in  a  pit  on  the  Nalaeheva  Cape. 

3.  Portion  of  upper  part  of  a  clay  pot  without  handles  inside.  It  consists  of  three  fragments  cemented  together  by  the 

author.  No  other  pieces  of  the  same  pot  were  discovered  and  we  do  riot  know  whether  its  bottom  was  flat  or  rounded. 
Outer  parallel  lines  made  by  a  comb-like  implement  are  similar  to  inner  parallel  lines  of  pots  with  handles  inside. 


JOCHELSON 


PLATE  18 


Fragments  of  clay  pots,  some  with  ears  inside.  From  Nalacheva  Cape,  Nalacheva  Lake,  and  shores  of  Kuril  Lake. 

Some  of  these  fragments  have  no  parallel  lines  inside. 


\ 


\ 


\ 


i 

i 


■ 


•  ... 
v  - 


L' 

of  t:-!E 


*  ...  V  ^  '• 


rv  cf  :‘.L!mois 


>■ 


JOCHELSON 


PLATE  19 


'’""Utj, 


£££& 


A  (2704).  IS  fragments  of  pottery  discovered  in  the  site  of  Kulki  River. 

B  (2863-2875).  12  fragments  of  pottery  found  in  excavations  of  the  banks  of  Kavran  River  and  a  fragment  of 
some  bone  implement. 


w‘.  I 


L  1Y 

0.-  IE 

; ’TV  '*  I 

k.  .  »  J  -.'4  - 


. 


. 


. 


* 


.  ♦ 


